CoinRithm Agent Trading

Set futures stop-loss / take-profit

set_futures_sl_tp

Idempotent

Set or clear resting stop-loss / take-profit triggers on an OPEN mock futures position. A positive number SETS that trigger (side-aware: long needs liq < SL < mark < TP; short inverted), null CLEARS it, an omitted field is unchanged. Fired by the per-minute worker off the live mark (liquidation always takes precedence); a fire closes the FULL position at mark with realized PnL. Discover fills between polls via my_trades with updatedSince. 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
`agentTrace`	No	Optional private trace metadata stored in the caller's ledger.
`positionId`	Yes	Open futures position id.
`stopLossPrice`	No	Positive number sets; null clears; omit = unchanged.
`takeProfitPrice`	No	Positive number sets; null clears; omit = unchanged.

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?

The description adds extensive behavioral context beyond annotations: side-aware trigger logic, worker execution, closure at mark, fill discovery via my_trades, scope requirements, paper-only status, execution cost details, and legal disclaimer. Annotations provide only basic hints.

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 includes lengthy details on paper execution policy and fees that may be excessive for an AI agent. It is well-structured but could be more concise.

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 parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: usage, constraints, behavior, scope, and execution model. No gaps identified.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining the side-aware ordering for SL and TP (long: liq < SL < mark < TP; short inverted) and clarifying that null clears while omitted leaves unchanged. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Set or clear' and the resource 'resting stop-loss / take-profit triggers on an OPEN mock futures position.' It distinguishes from siblings like close_futures_position and open_futures_position by focusing on SL/TP management.

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 how to use the tool (positive sets, null clears, omit unchanged) and mentions prerequisites (OPEN position, trade:futures scope, paper trading only). It implies when not to use (e.g., not for closing) but does not explicitly name 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?