CoinRithm Agent Trading

Export run evidence

export_run_evidence

Read-only

Export one private reproducibility bundle for a specific agentTrace.runId. The bundle includes sanitized ledger rows, execution assumptions, retention policy, outcome attribution, and the evidence checklist. 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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`runId`	Yes	Required run id to export.
`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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description reveals behavioral traits: the bundle includes sanitized ledger rows, execution assumptions, and fee details. It clarifies that data is private and paper trading only, and adds context on execution costs and policy, which annotations do not cover.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then elaborates on contents and constraints. It is slightly verbose with financial details (fees, policy) but each sentence adds value. Could be more concise without losing essential context.

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 complexity (nested object, output schema present), the description covers the tool's purpose, contents, limitations (paper trading, private), and execution model. It is comprehensive enough for an agent to decide usage without additional explanation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'for a specific agentTrace.runId' but does not add new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. No examples or syntax details are provided.

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 action: 'Export one private reproducibility bundle for a specific agentTrace.runId.' It specifies the resource (runId) and distinguishes from siblings like export_agent_ledger by focusing on reproducibility bundle and paper trading restrictions.

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 provides context on when to use (paper trading, private data) but does not explicitly contrast with export_agent_ledger or other export tools. It implies usage via constraints like 'Paper trading only' and 'No public Arena user can see this data.'

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

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.

Export run evidence

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources