reputation
Server Details
Query cryptographically-verified trading reputations (humans + AI agents). ed25519-signed.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- tradallo/reputation
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- tradallo-reputation
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: fetching track records, raw trade receipts, version history, searching records by filters, and verifying receipts. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_track_record, get_utrs, get_versions, search_records, verify_utr), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of querying and verifying trading reputation data. Neither sparse nor overwhelming.
The tool surface covers all necessary read operations: individual records, lists of receipts, version history, search, and cryptographic verification. No obvious gaps given the domain.
Available Tools
5 toolsget_track_recordARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Fetch a verified trading track record for a Tradallo profile (human) or agent. Returns cryptographically-verified statistics (Sharpe, Sortino, win rate, max drawdown, PnL, trade count, expectancy, profit factor) across all-time and rolling 30/90/365-day windows. Response is a JCS-canonicalized + ed25519-signed envelope.
Examples:
get_track_record({ handle: "alpha-momentum-v3" }) // agent (default)
get_track_record({ handle: "aaronjordan", principal_type: "human" })
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | Tradallo handle (lowercase letters, digits, hyphens, underscores; 1-40 chars) | |
| principal_type | No | 'agent' (default) or 'human' — which namespace to look up the handle in |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ok | No | Set to false on protocol-level errors. Successful envelopes do not include this. |
| data | Yes | The signed payload. Shape depends on the tool — see each tool's description. |
| served_at | No | ISO-8601 timestamp at which the envelope was signed. |
| signature | No | ed25519 signature over the JCS-canonicalized envelope minus this field. |
| schema_version | No | Envelope schema version. Always '1' today. |
| max_age_seconds | No | Replay window — clients reject envelopes past served_at + this many seconds. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions cryptographic signing (envelope) but omits error handling, auth needs, rate limits, or success/failure responses. Partial transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two key sentences plus two examples. No wasted words, all information front-loaded. Ideal length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, description covers return format (signed envelope) and key stats. Missing error behavior (e.g., invalid handle) but otherwise complete enough for a fetch tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with descriptions for both handle (pattern) and principal_type (enum). Description adds examples and clarifies default ('agent' for handle-only calls), adding value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it fetches a verified trading track record for a Tradallo profile or agent, lists returned statistics, and distinguishes from siblings like get_utrs (likely multiple records) and search_records (search). Specific verb+resource+scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Examples show when to use 'human' vs 'agent', but no explicit comparison to sibling tools or conditions for not using. Context is clear, but lacking exclusions/alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_utrsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Fetch raw Universal Trade Receipts for an agent. Each UTR is a v2 canonical receipt with its SHA-256 hash recomputed by Tradallo so consumers can spot-check individual receipts against verify_utr. Paginated cursor-style on closed_at — pass the prior response's next_since to advance.
Example:
get_utrs({ agent_handle: "alpha-momentum-v3", limit: 50 })
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size (1-500, default 100) | |
| since | No | ISO-8601 timestamp; only return UTRs closed at or after this. Defaults to the agent's registration anchor. | |
| agent_handle | Yes | Agent's Tradallo handle |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ok | No | Set to false on protocol-level errors. Successful envelopes do not include this. |
| data | Yes | The signed payload. Shape depends on the tool — see each tool's description. |
| served_at | No | ISO-8601 timestamp at which the envelope was signed. |
| signature | No | ed25519 signature over the JCS-canonicalized envelope minus this field. |
| schema_version | No | Envelope schema version. Always '1' today. |
| max_age_seconds | No | Replay window — clients reject envelopes past served_at + this many seconds. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries full burden. Discloses pagination behavior and hash recomputation, but does not mention idempotency, error handling, or response structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences plus a concise example. No fluff, first sentence sets purpose, second provides key behavior details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers pagination and relationship to verify_utr, but lacks description of response structure (e.g., fields of UTR) and does not explain 'v2 canonical receipt' for newcomers. Adequate with minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage, baseline 3. Description adds context about pagination cursor (next_since) but does not elaborate on 'since' or 'limit' beyond schema, and may cause confusion by mentioning next_since without clarifying it is a response field.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Fetch raw Universal Trade Receipts for an agent' with specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling 'verify_utr' by noting that hash is recomputed for spot-checking.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context for pagination (cursor on closed_at, passing next_since) and an example, but lacks explicit when-to-use or alternatives compared to sibling tools beyond hinting at verify_utr.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_versionsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Fetch the full version history of an agent: semver tags, version_hash, policy_hash, when each version was deployed and superseded. Use to understand which version of an agent's policy produced a given track record before delegating capital.
Example:
get_versions({ agent_handle: "alpha-momentum-v3" })
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_handle | Yes | Agent's Tradallo handle (lowercase letters, digits, hyphens, underscores) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ok | No | Set to false on protocol-level errors. Successful envelopes do not include this. |
| data | Yes | The signed payload. Shape depends on the tool — see each tool's description. |
| served_at | No | ISO-8601 timestamp at which the envelope was signed. |
| signature | No | ed25519 signature over the JCS-canonicalized envelope minus this field. |
| schema_version | No | Envelope schema version. Always '1' today. |
| max_age_seconds | No | Replay window — clients reject envelopes past served_at + this many seconds. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a read operation (fetch) and lists the returned fields. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or pagination, but for a simple fetch this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences plus an example, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main points: what is fetched, why to use it, and an example. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, but these are minor omissions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the one parameter. The description adds an example usage but does not provide additional semantic information beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states what the tool does: fetch full version history including semver tags, version_hash, policy_hash, and timestamps. It implies a use case (understanding which version produced a track record), but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_track_record.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: 'Use to understand which version of an agent's policy produced a given track record before delegating capital.' It offers an example, but does not specify when not to use it or compare to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_recordsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Discover verified trading records by performance filters. Returns a list of summary records sorted by the chosen metric. Useful when an agent is shopping for strategies meeting specific risk/return criteria.
Example:
search_records({ min_sharpe: 1.5, min_trades: 100, max_drawdown: 0.15, sort_by: "sharpe", limit: 10 })
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (1-100, default 25) | |
| venue | No | Restrict to a specific venue (e.g. 'hyperliquid', 'dydx') | |
| sort_by | No | Sort field (descending). Default 'net_pnl' | |
| min_sharpe | No | Minimum annualized Sharpe ratio | |
| min_trades | No | Minimum trade count | |
| max_drawdown | No | Max drawdown as a fraction (0.25 = 25%) | |
| principal_type | No | Restrict to humans or agents only |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ok | No | Set to false on protocol-level errors. Successful envelopes do not include this. |
| data | Yes | The signed payload. Shape depends on the tool — see each tool's description. |
| served_at | No | ISO-8601 timestamp at which the envelope was signed. |
| signature | No | ed25519 signature over the JCS-canonicalized envelope minus this field. |
| schema_version | No | Envelope schema version. Always '1' today. |
| max_age_seconds | No | Replay window — clients reject envelopes past served_at + this many seconds. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description indicates read operation ('Discover', 'Returns a list') but lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or authentication. Adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three focused sentences plus an illustrative example. No redundant information, front-loaded with purpose and usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Provides overview and example but lacks details on output format or pagination. With 7 parameters and no output schema, additional context about return records would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is high (86%) and descriptions are clear. Description adds a concrete example demonstrating parameter usage, which enhances understanding beyond schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it discovers verified trading records by performance filters and returns a sorted summary list. Differentiates from sibling tools like get_track_record which retrieves a single record.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says it's useful when shopping for strategies with specific criteria, providing clear usage context. Does not list exclusions but implies other tools for single-record access.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_utrARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Look up a Universal Trade Receipt by SHA-256 hash. Returns whether Tradallo has anchored that hash on-chain via a Solana memo transaction, and if so the chain, signature, slot, posted_at, Solana Explorer URL, and notarizer pubkey for independent verification.
Example:
verify_utr({ utr_hash: "b81f2c7e9a4d5e6f8a3b1c2d3e4f5a6b7c8d9e0f1a2b3c4d5e6f7a8b9c0d1e2f" })
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| utr_hash | Yes | 64-char hex SHA-256 hash of the UTR to look up |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ok | No | Set to false on protocol-level errors. Successful envelopes do not include this. |
| data | Yes | The signed payload. Shape depends on the tool — see each tool's description. |
| served_at | No | ISO-8601 timestamp at which the envelope was signed. |
| signature | No | ed25519 signature over the JCS-canonicalized envelope minus this field. |
| schema_version | No | Envelope schema version. Always '1' today. |
| max_age_seconds | No | Replay window — clients reject envelopes past served_at + this many seconds. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes return fields but lacks explicit read-only statement; no annotations provided, so description carries full burden but omits side-effect clarity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise single sentence plus example, front-loaded with purpose. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete for a hash-lookup tool: explains input, return fields (if found), and provides example. No output schema needed, schema coverage 100%.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers parameter fully with pattern and description; description adds example but no new semantic information beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'Look up' and specific resource 'Universal Trade Receipt by SHA-256 hash'. Distinguishes from siblings like get_utrs (list) and search_records (search).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage when you have a hash for on-chain anchoring verification, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs siblings or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.