Pay-per-use counter for AI agents: negotiate a price, and store an encrypted blob across sessions.
Copy the AI prompt to install this server into Claude Code, Cursor, or another agent β or use 1-click editor setup below.
We haven't yet run this listing's install command through our automated sandbox check. This isn't a red flag β we're steadily working through the catalog.
π‘ Paste the JSON block into your client's configuration file under mcpServers, then restart the application.
Free negotiation math for AI agents. One call, no account. Your agent brings the LLM; SNHP brings the game theory β your math-optimal next move in any negotiation, single-price and multi-issue, LLM-free, runs locally. When you need it on the record: $2 receipted sessions. When you need it to remember: agent memory (blind custody β you encrypt before saving; we store only ciphertext and cannot read it).
Β Β·Β snhp.dev Β Β·Β Manifesto
arena.snhp.dev/leaderboard.html β which AI walks away with the most money? Claude models, a naive splitter, a genome evolved in a live sim, and community bots all negotiate the same held-out multi-issue deals against the SNHP engine, scored against the exact Pareto frontier. Every match is a real recorded negotiation, replayable in the browser. Headline result: frontier models, solo, lose to the naive split-the-difference bot β wired to the engine mid-deal, they're near-optimal.
Put your bot on the board: expose one HTTP endpoint speaking
snhp-gauntlet/1 and DM
@ryuxik the URL. The runner lives in
arena/gauntlet/ β protocol, seats, scoring, and the
25-line starter bot. Machine-readable
spec: arena.snhp.dev/llms.txt.
Wire it into any MCP client (Claude Desktop, Cursor, Cline, β¦):
Or call the math directly β plain dollars in, the move out (the negotiate tool):
Multi-issue deals logroll automatically β SNHP infers the other side's priorities and proposes the package that maximises joint surplus (concede what you value least to hold what you value most):
Hosted agent card, streamable MCP, and a live demo: snhp.dev.
These are distinct measurements; conflating them is the easy mistake. They are ordered by how much weight they can carry, not by when we ran them. The first was pre-registered and validated on data it had never seen; the rest were not, and are reported here with the caveats that implies.
1. The certification gauntlet (pre-registered, held-out) β the number to trust.
A certified agent's mean own-utility beats a split-the-difference baseline by
+0.1086 across n=360 seeded negotiations (60 scenarios Γ 2 roles Γ 3 frozen
scripted opponents: naive, hardball, conceder), p=0.0001, separating on both the
public set and a held-out set that had never been used. The counterparty pool and
the statistic were frozen in arena/gauntlet/PREREG-pool.md before the code
existed. It carries the most weight precisely because it could have failed on the
record β and an earlier cut of this certificate did fail (three statistics saturated
against a fixed counterparty; see arena/gauntlet/certs/SEPARATION.md), which is why
the protocol was re-registered rather than re-tuned. Scope is exactly the declared
pool and no wider.
2. Head-to-head competitive margin (not registered in advance). In a
SNHP-scaffolded LLM vs a non-SNHP LLM, how much more of the surplus does the SNHP
side capture? On the committed cross-vendor run (gametheory/server/static/e6_cross_vendor.json,
Sonnet+SNHP vs Haiku, n=20 paired seeds) the pooled margin is ~+12.5%
(mean h3_margin β 0.125, 29/40 positive signs). Some shipped copy still cites this
as "~12% better head-to-head." Read it with the caveats: n=20, LLM-vs-LLM,
single-issue price, no pre-registration, and the opponent is a general vanilla
prompt β against a competent one the edge roughly halves (see the strong-baseline test
below). Where this and (1) disagree, prefer (1).
3. Joint-welfare lift in self-play (a cooperation metric, NOT the same thing). Two-Sonnet B2B contract negotiation, n=20 paired seeds:
| Condition | Joint welfare (frontier β 1.57, estimated) |
|---|---|
| Vanilla Sonnet (general prompt, no SNHP) | 1.40 |
| Pure SNHP-vs-SNHP (math only) | 1.45 |
| Sonnet + SNHP MCP tool (both sides) | 1.59 |
| Haiku + SNHP MCP tool (cross-model) | 1.61 |
Lift from both sides adopting the SNHP tool: +0.186 joint welfare, sign test 18/20, p=0.0004. (The 1.59/1.61 slightly exceed the 1.57 frontier estimate β the frontier was estimated on a coarse grid, so treat these as "at the frontier," not "beyond it.") Cost: $0.025 per matchup at 2026-04 pricing.
Numbers (2) and (3) above are vs a general vanilla prompt. The sharper question β "why not
just prompt the LLM well?" β is answered by running SNHP against a strong production
prompt (snhp/llm_strong_baseline.py, whose system prompt even includes logrolling
advice). On the 4-issue contract, Haiku+SNHP-tool vs Haiku+strong-prompt, n=12 paired
seeds (python -m snhp.strong_baseline_headtohead, result committed at
gametheory/server/static/strong_baseline_headtohead.json):
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Utility margin (SNHP β strong baseline) | +0.077, 95% CI [+0.039, +0.115] (excludes 0) |
| SNHP share of joint surplus | 54% (CI [52%, 56%]) |
| Sign test | 8/12 positive, 0 negative |
SNHP beats even a strong production prompt β but by roughly half the edge it shows against a weak one. Caveats: n=12, Haiku (not Sonnet), one contract domain; re-run at larger n / a stronger model to tighten the CI.
Network effect: the cooperation premium requires both sides to be SNHP-staked. Asymmetric matchups (Sonnet+SNHP vs vanilla Sonnet) lose 0.11 utility vs symmetric scaffolded play. Peer-mode advisor only fires when counterparty has posted a verifiable SNHP attestation.
Live demo (replay of the actual API trace at seed=42): https://snhp.dev/demo.html
In the committed round-robin (leaderboard/results/leaderboard.json, n_rounds=20),
SNHP's rank by average utility depends on the market:
| Market (BATNA) | SNHP rank | Top of field |
|---|---|---|
| Buyer's market (asymmetric) | #1 of 21 | SNHP 0.508 |
| Seller's market (asymmetric) | #1 of 21 | SNHP 0.520 |
| Symmetric (neutral) | 5th of 21 | Logroller 0.525, The Closer, Cialdini, Principled, then SNHP 0.512 |
So SNHP is #1 in the asymmetric markets and mid-pack in the symmetric one β
do not read this as "#1 overall." Its variance is the smallest in the field. At
n_rounds=100 the symmetric field restabilizes further and Aspiration leads.
This NegMAS agent (snhp/negmas_agent.py) is a research artifact and is NOT the
shipped product recommender β the product claims below are measured on the
shipped code, not on this tournament.
See gametheory/evals/README.md for the eval/tuning runbook.
Tier 4 (coalition games) deferred until a paying buyer asks for it.
mcp-name: io.github.ryuxik/snhp-negotiation
No reviews yet β be the first to share how this listing worked for you.
Showcase your server listing on GitHub or your project documentation. Embed this dynamic SVG badge to highlight official listing status and live engagement.
[](https://allmcps.com/mcp/snhp-negotiation-blind-locker-counter-for-agents)<a href="https://allmcps.com/mcp/snhp-negotiation-blind-locker-counter-for-agents"><img src="https://allmcps.com/api/badge/snhp-negotiation-blind-locker-counter-for-agents?style=directory" alt="SNHP β negotiation + blind Locker counter for agents on AllMCPs" /></a>