Add missing order fields

[alexex10]

Changes

• Add missing fields for RFQ and CHASE orders

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR aims to add missing order-related fields (notably rfq_start_price) across the SDK’s order models and order-creation/signing flow, and updates the MCP “place order” tool to derive a market price from top-of-book when a MARKET order omits price.

Changes:

• Add rfq_start_price parameters to REST/blocking client order placement and introduce RFQ-specific validation in the signing/order object builder.
• Extend order models to include rfq_start_price and add chase_order to OpenOrderModel.
• Update MCP order placement to compute a “best market price” from the orderbook and bump SDK version to 2.6.0.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 6 out of 6 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
x10/tools/mcp/place_order_tool.py	Adjusts MARKET price derivation from top-of-book and adds RFQ gating/validation for MCP order placement.
x10/signing/order_object.py	Adds rfq_start_price argument and validation to order-object creation/signing flow.
x10/models/order.py	Adds rfq_start_price to order models and introduces chase_order on open orders.
x10/clients/rest/rest_api_client.py	Threads rfq_start_price through the async REST order placement API.
x10/clients/blocking/blocking_trading_client.py	Threads rfq_start_price through the blocking trading client order placement API.
pyproject.toml	Bumps package version from 2.5.0 to 2.6.0.

Suppressed comments (2)

x10/tools/mcp/place_order_tool.py:188

• This check rejects TPSL orders because TPSL sets price = Decimal(0) and Decimal(0) is falsy, so not order_price raises even though price=0 is required for TPSL orders.

            if not order_price:
                raise ValidationError("`order_price` is required")

x10/signing/order_object.py:200

• rfq_start_price validation uses truthiness checks, so a provided value like Decimal(0) won’t be validated (it will be treated as “not provided”). Use is not None to detect whether the caller supplied the parameter.

        if rfq_start_price and not market.is_rfq:
            raise ValidationError("`rfq_start_price` must not be provided for non-RFQ markets")

        if rfq_start_price and order_type != OrderType.MARKET:
            raise ValidationError("`rfq_start_price` must not be provided for non-MARKET orders")

---

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 6 out of 6 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

Suppressed comments (4)

x10/signing/order_object.py:59

• rfq_start_price is a new request field with new validation rules (RFQ markets + MARKET orders only), but there are already comprehensive create_order_object tests under tests/signing/order_object/ and none cover this new behavior. Add tests for: (1) rejects rfq_start_price on non-RFQ markets, (2) rejects it for non-MARKET orders, (3) includes rfqStartPrice in to_api_request_json() when set for a valid RFQ market.

def create_order_object(
    *,
    account: StarkPerpetualAccount,
    market: MarketModel,
    amount_of_synthetic: Decimal,
    price: Decimal,
    rfq_start_price: Optional[Decimal] = None,
    side: OrderSide,
    starknet_domain: StarknetDomain,
    order_type: OrderType = OrderType.LIMIT,

x10/signing/order_object.py:198

• rfq_start_price validation uses truthiness checks, so a valid Decimal(0) (or other falsy values) will bypass validation and could be sent on non-RFQ / non-MARKET orders. Use explicit is not None checks so the constraints are enforced consistently.

    def validate_rfq_start_price():
        if rfq_start_price and not market.is_rfq:
            raise ValidationError("`rfq_start_price` must not be provided for non-RFQ markets")

        if rfq_start_price and order_type != OrderType.MARKET:
            raise ValidationError("`rfq_start_price` must not be provided for non-MARKET orders")

x10/tools/mcp/place_order_tool.py:188

• place_order now only checks order_price is None, which allows price=Decimal(0) for LIMIT orders (previously rejected by not price). A zero/negative limit price is invalid for normal markets and will create nonsensical orders. Add a strict validation for LIMIT orders (and keep TPSL’s price=0 special-case).

            order_price = (
                await _get_best_market_price(client=client, market=market, side=side)
                if order_type == OrderType.MARKET and price is None
                else price
            )

x10/models/order.py:168

• Adding rfq_start_price to NewOrderModel changes the output of to_api_request_json() when called with the default exclude_none=False (it will now include rfqStartPrice: None). Existing signing tests that assert the full dict (e.g., tests/signing/order_object/test_*) will need their expected payloads updated accordingly (or updated to dump with exclude_none=True).

    qty: Decimal
    price: Decimal
    rfq_start_price: Optional[Decimal] = None
    reduce_only: bool = False

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 6 out of 6 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

Suppressed comments (3)

x10/signing/order_object.py:198

• rfq_start_price validation uses truthiness checks (if rfq_start_price ...), so Decimal(0) (or other falsy numeric values) bypass the constraints and can be sent for non-RFQ markets / non-MARKET orders. Use explicit is not None checks so validation is based on presence rather than truthiness.

        if rfq_start_price and not market.is_rfq:
            raise ValidationError("`rfq_start_price` must not be provided for non-RFQ markets")

        if rfq_start_price and order_type != OrderType.MARKET:
            raise ValidationError("`rfq_start_price` must not be provided for non-MARKET orders")

x10/models/order.py:168

• Adding rfq_start_price to NewOrderModel changes serialization output (e.g., to_api_request_json() / model_dump) and will break existing snapshot-style tests and any callers comparing the serialized dict unless they’re updated (or use exclude_none=True). Please update the affected tests/fixtures accordingly.

    qty: Decimal
    price: Decimal
    rfq_start_price: Optional[Decimal] = None
    reduce_only: bool = False

x10/tools/mcp/place_order_tool.py:180

• This rejects RFQ markets, but the function still has an RFQ-specific placement path later (place_rfq_order(...) if market.is_rfq else ...). With the early raise, the RFQ branch becomes unreachable and the tool can never place RFQ orders. Either remove this guard (and optionally add RFQ-specific params like rfq_start_price), or remove the RFQ placement branch entirely if MCP truly shouldn’t support RFQ.

            if market.is_rfq:
                raise ValidationError("RFQ markets are not supported by MCP")