CoinRithm Agent Trading

Get wallet

get_wallet

Read-only

Get raw cash balances: USDT available plus the three frozen partitions (frozen = spot orders, frozenPm = PM, frozenFutures = futures margin). Optionally include one coin asset. 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	Default
`coinId`	No	Coin UCID (e.g. "1" = BTC) to also return that asset.
`agentTrace`	No	Optional private trace metadata stored in the caller's ledger.

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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations (read-only, non-destructive), the description discloses paper trading simulation, virtual funds, execution cost details, and fee structures. This adds valuable behavioral context without 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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but subsequent detailed execution cost explanations may be excessive for a simple wallet balance tool. It earns its place but could be tighter.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity and existing output schema, the description adequately covers return structure and simulation context. It explains enough for an agent to understand the tool's role and environment.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The main description adds only minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'optionally include one coin asset'), not significantly enhancing understanding.

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 the tool retrieves raw cash balances including USDT available and frozen partitions, and optionally a specific coin asset. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_portfolio or get_positions.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for cash balance queries but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to siblings. The 'paper trading only' note offers context but no exclusion of alternatives.

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?