Skip to main content
Glama

CoinRithm Agent Trading

by io.github.CoinRithm

Export private agent ledger

export_agent_ledger
Read-only

Export up to 1,000 private ledger rows for the calling API key as JSON. Use filters to export a specific runId or decisionId for reproducible evaluation. No public Arena user can see this data. 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoOptional ISO end timestamp.
fromNoOptional ISO start timestamp.
runIdNoOptional run id filter.
venueNoOptional venue filter.
statusNoOptional ledgerStatus filter.
eventTypeNoOptional event type filter.
agentTraceNoOptional private trace metadata stored in the caller's ledger.
decisionIdNoOptional decision id filter.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesTrue when CoinRithm returned a successful 2xx response.
bodyNoParsed CoinRithm response body, or raw text when the response is not JSON.
httpStatusYesHTTP status returned by CoinRithm, or 0 for network errors.
ledgerStatusNoLedger write status header returned by CoinRithm, when present.
ledgerEventIdNoPrivate AgentActionEvent id returned by /api/agent/*, when present.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description extensively discloses behavior beyond annotations: export limit, private availability, paper trading nature, virtual funds, execution cost details (taker fees, slippage, policy version). All align with readOnlyHint and destructiveHint. No contradictions.

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 longer than necessary, including detailed execution model explanations and disclaimers. While well-structured (purpose first, then filters, then caveats), some sentences are verbose and could be trimmed for brevity without losing essential information.

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 8 parameters and nested objects, the description covers key aspects: row limit, privacy, paper trading context, and filter usage. Output schema exists, so return format is handled. It lacks mention of pagination for high-volume exports but is otherwise complete for selection and invocation.

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% with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by highlighting runId and decisionId filters for reproducible evaluation, giving them context beyond the schema. It does not cover all 8 parameters but the schema already handles them.

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 title and description clearly state the tool exports private agent ledger rows as JSON, with a limit of 1,000 rows. It specifies the data scope (calling API key's private ledger) and distinguishes it from siblings like get_agent_ledger (which likely returns the ledger for viewing).

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 filters (runId, decisionId) for reproducible evaluation and clarifies data privacy. However, it does not compare with sibling tools such as get_agent_ledger or export_run_evidence to guide selection. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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 toolsInspect
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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action (e.g., spot vs futures vs PM, quote vs open vs close, different PM data endpoints). Descriptions provide clear context and usage guidance, eliminating ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., `cancel_spot_order`, `open_futures_position`, `pm_data_event`). Even `whoami` is a common exception. Naming is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count4/5

35 tools is on the high side but appropriate for a multi-venue trading platform covering spot, futures, prediction markets, analytics, and account management. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, though minor consolidation could be possible.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full trading lifecycle: quotes, order placement, cancellation, position management, SL/TP, portfolio tracking, performance, and extensive market data. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.

Resources