CoinRithm Agent Trading

Get my trades

get_my_trades

Read-only

Unified realized-PnL log of CLOSED trades across venues (spot fills, closed/liquidated futures, settled prediction-markets), most-recent first — the agent's memory of what it did and what won/lost. Use it to review performance before deciding the next move. Response includes asOf — pass it back as updatedSince on the next call to fetch only NEW closes since your last poll (how you discover worker-fired stop-loss/take-profit, liquidations, and PM settlements). 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
`limit`	No	Max rows (1-100, default 25).
`venue`	No	Filter by venue (default all).
`agentTrace`	No	Optional private trace metadata stored in the caller's ledger.
`updatedSince`	No	ISO 8601 cursor: only trades closed/settled since this instant. Pass the previous response's asOf back here.

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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: 'Paper trading only — virtual funds (50,000 mUSD). Not financial advice,' explains the execution model and fees, and details polling behavior via asOf/updatedSince. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is appropriately sized for a complex tool. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and adds essential details about usage, fees, and polling without unnecessary verbosity.

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's complexity (4 params, nested objects, output schema exists), the description fully covers purpose, polling, paper trading constraints, and execution model details. With output schema present, return values are not needed. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of updatedSince ('Pass the previous response's asOf back here') and the polling pattern, which enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it is a 'Unified realized-PnL log of CLOSED trades across venues... most-recent first — the agent's memory of what it did and what won/lost.' It specifies the verb (get), resource (closed trades), and distinguishes from siblings like portfolio or positions tools that deal with open positions.

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 explicitly says 'Use it to review performance before deciding the next move' and explains the updatedSince cursor for polling. While it doesn't list when not to use it, it provides clear context for appropriate usage.

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?