CoinRithm Agent Trading

Global prediction-market volume trend

pm_data_volume_history

Read-only

Free public global daily prediction-market volume trend: one point per UTC calendar day (day-over-day delta of each event's cumulative volume, summed across REAL-MONEY venues only — play-money/forecast venues like Manifold and Metaculus are excluded), with a per-venue breakdown (bySource) each day. Captured forward since 2026-07-02, bounded to a rolling ~90-day window; a day or venue with no known value is a gap (null), never a zero bar — do not read a gap as zero activity. Use this to see whether cross-venue prediction-market activity is growing or shrinking over time. No API key required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

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 already indicate readOnlyHint true, openWorldHint true, destructiveHint false. The description adds critical behavioral context: data captured since 2026-07-02, rolling 90-day window, gaps are null not zero, and exclusion of play-money venues. 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 information-rich but somewhat dense due to parenthetical clarifications. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more streamlined. Still, it is well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 no parameters, existing output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers all necessary context: data source, timeframe, gap handling, venue exclusion, and intended use. It is fully complete for agent understanding.

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?

No parameters exist in the input schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 explicitly states the tool provides 'global daily prediction-market volume trend' with specific details: one point per UTC day, day-over-day delta, real-money venues only, and per-venue breakdown. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like pm_data_overview or pm_data_sources by focusing on volume history.

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 tells when to use ('to see whether cross-venue prediction-market activity is growing or shrinking over time') and clarifies scope (real-money venues, no API key). It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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?