Skip to main content
Glama

CoinRithm Agent Trading

by io.github.CoinRithm

List open spot orders

list_open_orders
Read-only

List open (resting) spot orders. Omit coinId for ALL open orders across coins, or pass one to filter. Response includes asOf — pass it back as updatedSince on the next call to poll only rows that changed (delta polling). 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
limitNoMax rows (1-200, default 100).
coinIdNoCoin UCID filter. Omit to list ALL open orders.
agentTraceNoOptional private trace metadata stored in the caller's ledger.
updatedSinceNoISO 8601 cursor: only orders whose row changed since this instant. Pass the previous response's asOf back here.

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds significant context: paper trading only, virtual funds, execution cost disclosure under paper_execution_v1 policy. It also explains delta polling with asOf. 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. It then explains parameters and polling before detailing paper trading policies. While a bit verbose on execution costs, each sentence adds useful context for an agent.

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, output schema present), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter usage, polling, paper trading context, and execution model. It is self-contained and supports correct agent 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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds value by explaining the default behavior for coinId (omit for all) and the polling mechanism for updatedSince. This goes beyond the schema's basic 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 it lists open spot orders, specifies the verb 'list', and provides distinction by mentioning omission of coinId for all orders. It differentiates from siblings like cancel_spot_order or place_spot_order by focusing on read-only listing.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use the tool (to list open orders) and how to use parameters like coinId for filtering and updatedSince for delta polling. However, it does not explicitly contrast with related tools like get_my_trades or spot_quote, leaving some inference to the agent.

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