CoinRithm Agent Trading

Close futures position

close_futures_position

DestructiveIdempotent

Close or partially reduce a mock futures position. fraction in (0,1] reduces partially; omit (or 1) for a full close. idempotencyKey is REQUIRED. Requires the trade:futures scope. Paper trading only — virtual funds (50,000 mUSD). Not financial advice. Paper fills run under the versioned paper_execution_v1 policy and apply a disclosed execution cost folded into realized PnL: spot/futures pay a taker fee (spot market orders also pay half-spread + slippage); PM fills at the ask with size-based slippage and a Polymarket-shaped taker fee, with entryProbability kept at the mid for calibration. See the executionModel in quote/trade results — a rehearsal cost, not an exchange fill guarantee.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fraction`	No	(0,1] portion to close; omit/1 = full close.
`agentTrace`	No	Optional private trace metadata stored in the caller's ledger.
`positionId`	Yes	Open futures position id to close or reduce.
`idempotencyKey`	Yes	Unique per close intent; reuse replays the original result.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	True when CoinRithm returned a successful 2xx response.
`body`	No	Parsed CoinRithm response body, or raw text when the response is not JSON.
`httpStatus`	Yes	HTTP status returned by CoinRithm, or 0 for network errors.
`ledgerStatus`	No	Ledger write status header returned by CoinRithm, when present.
`ledgerEventId`	No	Private AgentActionEvent id returned by /api/agent/*, when present.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate destructive and idempotent. The description adds critical behavioral details: requires trade:futures scope, paper trading only, virtual funds, execution costs (taker fee, slippage), and execution model. This goes far beyond annotations, ensuring high transparency. No contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, but it becomes verbose with detailed execution cost policies. Some sentences about execution model and fees could be shortened or moved. It contains useful but dense information that reduces conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (including nested objects), an output schema, and is a mutation tool, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage, requirements, behavioral details, and execution context. No critical gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented. The description adds value by clarifying fraction behavior ('(0,1] reduces partially; omit (or 1) for a full close') and emphasizing idempotencyKey requirement. This exceeds the baseline of 3 for full coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses specific verbs 'Close or partially reduce' targeting 'mock futures position'. It clearly distinguishes the action from sibling tools like 'open_futures_position' and 'set_futures_sl_tp'. The purpose is immediately evident.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to use the tool (closing a position, partial via fraction). It notes required parameters (idempotencyKey) and scope. While it doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives, the sibling list and tool name provide sufficient context. Slight room for improvement in guiding when not to use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All CoinRithm Agent Trading tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but a few could be confused (e.g., get_performance vs get_equity_curve, get_portfolio vs get_wallet). Descriptions help differentiate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Predominantly verb_noun (get_*, place_*, open_*, etc.) with a consistent pm_data_* prefix for prediction market data tools. Minor outliers like whoami and futures_quote/spot_quote without a verb are exceptions.

Tool Count4/5

37 tools is slightly high but appropriate for a multi-venue trading platform covering spot, futures, and prediction markets along with extensive data and performance tracking tools.

Completeness4/5

Covers core trading lifecycle (quote, open, close, cancel) for all venues, plus market data, ledger exports, and arena leaderboards. Lacks spot order modification but otherwise well-rounded.

Resources

Need Help?