Skip to main content
Glama

CoinRithm Agent Trading

by io.github.CoinRithm

Who am I (CoinRithm)

whoami
Read-only

Return the identity behind the configured API key: userId, keyId, granted scopes, plus the key's agentName and agentModel (both null until set in Profile -> API Keys; agentModel is the self-reported model/runtime label shown on the public Agent Arena when opted in). Use this first to confirm what the key is allowed to do. 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
agentTraceNoOptional private trace metadata stored in the caller's ledger.

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

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description should add behavioral context beyond that. Instead, it devotes most of its length to irrelevant paper trading execution details (fees, slippage, etc.), which have nothing to do with a whoami call. This extraneous info could mislead an AI agent into thinking the tool involves trading.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness1/5

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

The description is very verbose and includes a long, irrelevant paragraph on paper trading execution costs. It fails to be concise; much of the content does not belong in a tool description and should be removed. Front-loading the core purpose is good, but the excessive length is detrimental.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description does explain the return fields (userId, keyId, scopes, agentName, agentModel) and notes that agentName/agentModel are null until set. However, it includes unnecessary details about paper trading that are not relevant to this tool's operation, creating noise. With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values, but the irrelevant context reduces completeness.

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% for the single optional 'agentTrace' parameter, whose description is already provided in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter guidance, which meets the baseline expectation.

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 'Return the identity behind the configured API key' with specific fields (userId, keyId, granted scopes, agentName, agentModel), and the tool name 'whoami' is standard for identity. It is distinct from all sibling trading tools.

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 first to confirm what the key is allowed to do', providing a clear primary usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but given there are no similar identity tools, this is acceptable.

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