Not yet, but will happen in the future. Currently, we have these indicators. However, you can use TradingView Webhooks for this.
You can do that.
Yeah, you can configure this.
Hi @sivaprasad_pakala , you can consume the OI values using FIA to create automations. Please share the usecase so that I can help with building the necessary automation.
The limit order need not be ltp. for example i have webhook trigger, which contains a price. I want to create a Future order (so that i can select the correct expiry automatically )and that price as limit order price.
say i want to put a buy order at that price (limit price) . I am fine if LTP is higher, and my order is never executed (as it will be when I put manual limit buy order when ltp is high. )
i expect to price to retrace and give me my limit price..
does that make sense?
Yes Rahul, you can do this by prompting to FIA, I will share the sample prompt and how it is configured.
Prompt: “Identify the current month futures for NIfty and find the LTP once the webhook is triggered. place a limit order in the symbol for LTP + 5 Rupees.”
The following prompt will create workflow like this:
Here limit order is being placed for current month futures with adding 5 rupees to the LTP, you can create your required configuration.
Amazing feature, thank you, we can create automate within minutes. Also please add feature to partially book profit, eg: if we have 4 lots, book only 2 lots.
1 Like
Hi Team/ @kishore_krishna @shruthi_shetty
Appreciate all your efforts in building the innovative features around the Automate.
Got excited with Automate and started using Live in the month of May’26 ,but find out issues with my MTF strategy and reported the issue on 27-May-26 ,so far my issue was not addressed its almost more than three months and I am not able to use the AUTOMATE feature at all and not able to Test and Deploy it.
I am a PRIME member as well and my Id is YGO2313 also sent a 1-1 message to @yashas sometime last week as nothing is moving.
Can you guys from the Product team look into it and update me on this and the Support tickets are (2208149/2325968)
Thanks
Gokul
feedback:
Better to have more Timeframes so it gives more flexibility for different kinds of traders whose TF vary(Minutes - 2/3/5/ Hourly - 4H),May be you have figured it out already just letting know
Provision to compare Previous Candle for various indicators as it will help for Swing Entry.
Hi @kgk ,
2min and 3 min candles will be enabled very soon. Apologies for the delay.
Regarding previous candle based indicator value, can you help me with understanding your requirement a little more, currently you can create a condition on indicator, for the specific value, and check the value for next candle, how wil this be different from enabling previous candle indicator value?
Thank you for the reply.
Assume using a strategy of Multiple TF’s and on a Higher TF if RSI is less than 40 in the Previous candle and it is moving above 40 in the Current candle it helps to take a swing entry and the price will shoot up based on other criterias and we can do the position sizing according to the behaviour and if we are just using indicator value it may not help that much and our entries will be late and we miss opportunity.
For my open issue which I stated above(From May’26) the Support team told its checking the Previous Candle for Higher TF’s(5/15) when we are using MTF’s(1/5/15) in the strategy which is wrong the Default should be Current candle.The primary drive should be on the 1 Min candle.
Can you please update on the open issue as I waiting to use Automate feature.
Thanks
Gokul
Hi Fyers Team,
May I know the update on the issue related to Automate which I am chasing from past Three and half months.
(post deleted by author)
Thanks, I will try this way, but I prefer future order block.. for below reason.
I get tradingview webhook call with NATGASMINI as ticker and number of lots to buy or sell. and I use it and nearmonth expiry as combination to build the Future Order.
THe problem with trying with FIA as it only allows 5 prompts per day in free version.. and if i do something manually which I can and try to modify it with fia to acheive in 5 prmots. it many times currupt what I have manully buld as well.
Thanks I was able to achieve it using Variable with Get Symbol, to get the Future with current expiry with natgasmini.
I have observed one problem though. @Webhook0.output.tradingview_price is not available when placing the limit order.
what I mean is when I try to use @Webhook0.output.tradingview_lotsand start typing it in lots section it shows it dropdownso select, but in limit price section of any order if I try to type @Webhook0.output.tradingview_price this is not a option... the dropdown has price option for chartink price but not tradingview_price
Same is also true for expression builder, now allowing to use tradingview price at all in an expression builder. , if I try to type it out in expression it doesn’t accept it as value.
Please fix it.
The feature is awsome . I notified a issue during back test . i marked the starting trade as 10 am but your back test results picked the 9.16 am in one of the trade . the back test id is 7e6aad52-14f8-4e8a-afb4-c7b951fb320a.
The work you have done is excellent, but you should also provide some simple things. I tried to contact you for those, but got no reply from your team. Sometimes, simple things lead you to the top 10
Subject: Feature Request: Time to upgrade FYERS Screeners from “Stone Age” lagging indicators to modern SMC/ICT Order Flow logic
Hey community and FYERS Product Team,
While the FYERS platform has made great strides in charting and execution, the current FIA Screener feels like it’s still living in a dinosaur world. Relying heavily on stone-age lagging technical indicators (like RSIs crossing lines or moving average crossovers) simply doesn’t cut it anymore for professional-quality analysis.
Traders who rely on raw price action, institutional order flow, and Smart Money Concepts (SMC) / Inner Circle Trader (ICT) models cannot build high-probability watchlists with the current toolset. Lagging screens constantly flag false breakouts or late entries because they completely ignore structural liquidity.
I would strongly urge the FYERS programming team to build a modern, professional-grade scanner engine that allows filters based on real-time market structure rather than moving average mathematics.
Specifically, we need the capability to screen for:
- True Liquidity Sweeps: Identifying when a stock takes out/mops up buy-side or sell-side liquidity at major external swing lows/highs.
- Market Structure Shifts (MSS) & Break of Structure (BOS): Filtering for strict daily or intraday candle body closes above or below the immediate pre-reversal swing points to validate structural flips.
- Displacement & Volume Validation: Confirming that the reversal leg shows genuine institutional volume injection (e.g., volume expanding > 1.2x of the 20-day SMA) alongside displacement.
- Imbalances & Fair Value Gaps (FVGs): Tracking the price legs that leave behind clean institutional inefficiencies for premium-to-discount limit orders.
The market has evolved past the era of trading generic retail indicator crossovers. FYERS has the infrastructure to be a pioneer here in India—let’s get a native SMC/ICT scanner built into the platform so we can screen for high-edge institutional setups cleanly.
Would love to hear the community’s thoughts on this, and hopefully, the dev team takes note!
Hi @niraj_vekariya, sorry we missed your feedback earlier. We’d really appreciate it if you could share more details about what you were looking for. Your feedback is valuable to us, and we’d love to hear your suggestions.
Hi Shekhar, thank you for the detailed feedback and suggestions. For screening, we’ve recently launched Smart Screeners, which offer a wider range of data points and metrics to help build more advanced scans.
For indicators such as True Liquidity Sweeps, Market Structure Shifts (MSS), Break of Structure (BOS), and Imbalances/Fair Value Gaps (FVGs), implementing these would require some time and evaluation. Your feedback on adding SMC/ICT-based conditions is duly noted. Thanks again for taking the time to share this.