AIToday
Large Language ModelsAI Coding AssistantsZenn AI/MLPublished: Oct 17, 2026, 22:00 JST

Opus 5.5 returns HTTP 400 on ALPHA FORGE's forced tool spec

Opus 5.5 returns HTTP 400 on ALPHA FORGE's forced tool spec

3 Key Points

  1. What happened

    The developer switched ALPHA FORGE's judge model to the brand-new Opus 5.5 on Saturday, Sept 26, and it returned HTTP 400 because it does not accept the app's forced tool-use specification. The previous Opus 5 and Sonnet 5 accept it fine, and the app's logs recorded only the 400 number.

  2. Why it matters

    A newly released model is not automatically backward-compatible with an existing app, so a weekend trial run surfaced the failure before a scheduled Monday run could break every judgment with no explanatory error text.

Not sure about something? Ask the AI

Questions and answers are published on this page.

Summaries like this, in your inbox every morning.

Context & Analysis

The episode is a case study in how quickly a model upgrade can turn into an outage. ALPHA FORGE runs two AI workers: a Claude-based judge that decides trades and a Gemini-based shadow that only solves the same problems for comparison. When the developer asked Claude Code to pull every model name supported by each provider's official API, the list filled with brand-new releases, and selecting Opus 5.5 seemed like a straightforward improvement. The forced tool specification dates back to an earlier installment, when the design required three prices to be stated every time; Opus 5.5 and Fable 5.1 reject that constraint outright and return HTTP 400, while Opus 5 and Sonnet 5 still comply. Because the app's logging recorded only the status code and not the response body, the Saturday trial was the only thing standing between the setup and a Monday morning pick of zero results accompanied by unexplained errors.

The developer chose the AI's second option rather than its recommended first one, deliberately avoiding a weekend change to the core judgment logic in favor of a configuration swap that worked immediately. That swap made the trade-off visible: running on Opus 5 took 174 seconds per pick and raised input tokens 12% and output tokens 44%, with estimated cost about 6.4 times higher than Sonnet 5. The developer judged that the accuracy gain had not been measured against that gap, and reverted both the settings and the model-list feature with a revert commit.

Separately, the comparison surfaced that the Gemini shadow had not succeeded since Sept 13. It had been returning HTTP 402 with the message "Your prepayment credits are depleted." Because the shadow does not affect production judgments, the screen kept working normally and nobody noticed for 13 days. That one could not be fixed in code; the developer topped up on Google's side and the response returned to 200 the same day.

FAQ
Why did Opus 5.5 return HTTP 400 in ALPHA FORGE?
ALPHA FORGE forces the AI to answer in a specific tool format, and Opus 5.5 does not accept that forced specification, so it returned HTTP 400. The earlier Opus 5 and Sonnet 5 accept the same specification.
What did the developer choose to do after the failure?
The developer rejected the AI's recommended fix and instead switched the default model to claude-opus-5, then reverted settings and code after the cost comparison.
How did the cost of Opus 5 compare with Sonnet 5?
Per judgment, input tokens rose 12% and output tokens rose 44%, and the estimated cost was about 6.4 times higher than Sonnet 5.

AI news that matters for your work, delivered every morning.

Pick your industry and the AI tools you use, and get news related to your work every day.

Free · 30 seconds with Google · unsubscribe anytimeWhat is AIToday? →

Ask AI

Ask AI anything about this article. The AI reads this article, earlier AIToday articles, and Wikipedia, and cites its sources. Q&As are published on this page for other readers too.

Questions and answers are published on this page.

Related Articles

Next articleDanaher teams with NVIDIA on AI lab, Abcam autonomous facility