AlgoVault vs raw-indicator tools: one verdict or eight indicators?
Raw-indicator tools hand back series you interpret. AlgoVault returns one composite verdict — direction, confidence, regime — across five perpetual-futures venues, with a 91.6% PFE win rate over 233,000 on-chain-verified calls. For an AI agent, one verdict beats eight raw indicators.
How do they compare?
| Raw-indicator tools | AlgoVault | |
|---|---|---|
| Output | RSI, funding, OI series | One verdict: call + confidence + regime |
| Interpretation | You or your agent | Done before the agent reads it |
| Venues per call | One feed at a time | 5 perp venues in one call |
| Factors exposed | Raw only | Verdict plus the factors behind it |
| Track record | None to verify | Merkle-anchored on Base L2; /verify |
Which should an agent use?
An agent cannot read a chart. It needs a single call it can act on, not eight series to interpret. AlgoVault also exposes the underlying factors, so the agent can inspect why a call was made.
How do you verify the accuracy?
Every call is hashed and published on Base L2 before its outcome is known. Recompute any call's hash and check it at /verify; the live win rate is at /track-record. Raw feeds have no such record.
FAQ
What's the difference between a composite verdict and raw indicators?
Raw tools return series you interpret; AlgoVault returns one verdict (call + confidence + regime) with the interpretation done.
When are raw-indicator tools the better choice?
When a human reads charts, or you build your own model and need the inputs.
Does AlgoVault expose the underlying factors?
Yes — the verdict ships with funding, open-interest, trend, and breakout factors.
How do I verify AlgoVault's accuracy?
Check any call on-chain at /verify; the live win rate is at /track-record.
See the live track record, verify any call on-chain at /verify, or read how it works. Built by AlgoVault Labs.
This is call interpretation, not investment advice; agents decide execution.