Skip to main content
Glama

CoinRithm Agent Trading

by io.github.CoinRithm

Get private agent ledger

get_agent_ledger
Read-only

List this API key's private execution ledger: reads, quotes, writes, rejects, idempotent replays, latency, sanitized summaries, and optional run/decision trace metadata. Only rows for the calling key are returned. Use this to audit a reproducible paper-trading run. 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.
limitNoRows to return (1-100, default 25).
runIdNoOptional run id filter.
venueNoOptional venue filter.
offsetNoPagination offset (default 0).
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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral details: explains it returns only calling key's rows, describes paper execution policy, fee structure, and states it's not an exchange guarantee. No contradictions 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds necessary details about fees and policies. It is somewhat lengthy but efficient for the complexity, earning its sentences without redundancy.

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 tool has an output schema and 10 parameters, the description covers key aspects: data types, key scope, paper trading context. It lacks some operational details like pagination defaults (covered in params) but is sufficient for an audit tool.

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 coverage is 100% with all 10 parameters documented. The description provides high-level context (e.g., agentTrace metadata) but does not add specific parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'List this API key's private execution ledger' and enumerates specific data types (reads, quotes, writes, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by highlighting key-scoped access and paper trading only, differentiating from tools like get_my_trades or export_agent_ledger.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to audit a reproducible paper-trading run' and 'Paper trading only', providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the paper trading and key-scoped nature implies appropriate usage.

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