CoinRithm Agent Trading

Get positions

get_positions

Read-only

List open + historical positions for a venue. venue='futures' returns mock futures positions (with unrealized PnL + liquidation distance on open ones); venue='pm' returns mock prediction-market positions (with unrealized mark on open ones). Response includes asOf — pass it back as updatedSince on the next call to poll only positions that changed (catches worker-fired SL/TP, liquidations, and 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
`venue`	Yes	Which venue's positions to list.
`agentTrace`	No	Optional private trace metadata stored in the caller's ledger.
`updatedSince`	No	ISO 8601 cursor: only positions whose row changed 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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint), the description adds critical context: paper trading only, virtual funds, execution model details, fees, slippage, and the mock nature of positions. It also explains the asOf cursor for polling, which is essential for correct usage.

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 quite long and includes extensive execution model details that, while informative, could be condensed. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, but the verbosity reduces clarity for an AI agent scanning quickly.

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 availability of annotations and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: venue differentiation, polling mechanism, paper trading caveats, and execution costs. The agent can confidently determine when to use the tool and what to expect.

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 have basic descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the venue-specific behavior (futures vs pm) and the 'updatedSince' cursor usage. The 'agentTrace' parameter is not elaborated, but the schema details suffice.

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 'List open + historical positions for a venue' and distinguishes between 'futures' and 'pm' venues, each with specific return details. This differentiates it from sibling tools like close_futures_position or get_my_trades.

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 (to list positions) and mentions polling with 'updatedSince' for efficiency. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context implies its primary purpose, and the sibling list provides differentiation.

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?