CoinRithm/coinrithm-agent-trading

Official

by CoinRithm

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Hybrid

Global prediction-market volume trend

pm_data_volume_history

Read-only

Track daily prediction-market volume trends across real-money venues to see if cross-venue activity is growing or shrinking over a rolling 90-day window.

Instructions

Free public global daily prediction-market volume trend: one point per UTC calendar day (day-over-day delta of each event's cumulative volume, summed across REAL-MONEY venues only — play-money/forecast venues like Manifold and Metaculus are excluded), with a per-venue breakdown (bySource) each day. Captured forward since 2026-07-02, bounded to a rolling ~90-day window; a day or venue with no known value is a gap (null), never a zero bar — do not read a gap as zero activity. Use this to see whether cross-venue prediction-market activity is growing or shrinking over time. No API key required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`body`	No
`httpStatus`	Yes
`ledgerStatus`	No
`ledgerEventId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv0.1.23Oct 2, 2026

removedOutput schema / properties / body / description

Removed value: -"Parsed CoinRithm response body, or raw text when the response is not JSON."

removedOutput schema / properties / httpStatus / description

Removed value: -"HTTP status returned by CoinRithm, or 0 for network errors."

removedOutput schema / properties / ledgerEventId / description

Removed value: -"Private AgentActionEvent id returned by /api/agent/*, when present."

removedOutput schema / properties / ledgerStatus / description

Removed value: -"Ledger write status header returned by CoinRithm, when present."

removedOutput schema / properties / ok / description

Removed value: -"True when CoinRithm returned a successful 2xx response."

Addedv0.1.14Aug 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavior the annotations cannot: forward capture since 2026-07-02, a rolling ~90-day bound, daily UTC bucketing, per-venue bySource breakdown, and the crucial semantic that missing values are null gaps, never zero. The 'do not read a gap as zero activity' warning materially prevents misinterpretation of results.

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 core definition is front-loaded and information-dense, with caveats (window, null semantics, no key) following. Overall efficient, though 'Free public' and 'No API key required' restate the same access fact and the opening sentence is heavily parenthesized.

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?

For a no-argument aggregation tool with an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the series means, its time bounds, granularity, venue inclusion rules, and how to interpret nulls. With the output schema carrying return structure, nothing material is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. No parameter claims are contradicted or left ambiguous.

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?

States a precise verb+resource (daily prediction-market volume trend) with the exact scope: cross-venue, real-money venues only, per-UTC-day granularity. An agent can distinguish it immediately from siblings like pm_data_overview, pm_data_calibration, or pm_data_sources.

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?

Explicitly states the intended use case — 'see whether cross-venue prediction-market activity is growing or shrinking over time' — which gives clear context for selection. It does not, however, name or exclude any specific alternative sibling tool, so routing vs. pm_data_overview or pm_data_calibration is left implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.