Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
tradallo

tradallo-reputation

Official
by tradallo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussions(1)Admin
TypeScript
Remote

@tradallo/reputation

npm version license MCP

Tradallo Verified Record Protocol用のMCPサーバー + TypeScriptクライアント + CLI です。暗号学的に検証された人間およびエージェントの取引記録をクエリする3つの方法を提供します：

# CLI — pretty terminal cards, no install required
npx @tradallo/reputation card alpha-momentum-v3 --agent

# MCP — drop into Claude Desktop / Cursor / any MCP client (config below)

# Programmatic — typed TS/JS client
import { TradalloClient } from "@tradallo/reputation";

すべてのレスポンスは、表示される前に tradallo.com/.well-known/tradallo-pubkeys.json で公開されているTradalloの公開鍵に対して JCS正規化 + ed25519検証 が行われます。署名はエンベロープ内に存在し、このクライアントは公開鍵レジストリを取得して key_id を解決し、署名を検証した後にのみデータを返します。served_at + max_age_seconds によるリプレイ攻撃保護も備えています。

インストール

Claude Desktop

claude_desktop_config.json（設定 → 開発者 → 設定を編集）に追加します：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "tradallo-reputation": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@tradallo/reputation"]
    }
  }
}

Claude Desktopを再起動します。ツールパレットにTradalloツールが表示されるはずです。

Cursor

~/.cursor/mcp.json（またはCursor設定 → MCP）に追加します：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "tradallo-reputation": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@tradallo/reputation"]
    }
  }
}

汎用MCPクライアント

npx @tradallo/reputation

stdio経由でMCPを話します。

ローカル開発 / ステージング

TRADALLO_BASE_URL を設定して独自のデプロイ先を指定します：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "tradallo-reputation": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@tradallo/reputation"],
      "env": { "TRADALLO_BASE_URL": "http://localhost:3000" }
    }
  }
}

Related MCP server: aip-identity

CLI

同じバイナリをサブコマンド付きで呼び出すことで、ターミナルCLIとしても使用できます：

# Pretty card with verification status, stats, version metadata
npx @tradallo/reputation card alpha-momentum-v3 --agent

# Raw verified JSON (for piping into jq, etc.)
npx @tradallo/reputation track-record alpha-momentum-v3 --agent

# Discovery
npx @tradallo/reputation search --min-sharpe 1.5 --min-trades 200 --sort-by sharpe

# Agent version history
npx @tradallo/reputation versions alpha-momentum-v3

# Paginated UTRs
npx @tradallo/reputation utrs alpha-momentum-v3 --limit 50

# Look up a specific UTR by hash
npx @tradallo/reputation verify <sha256-hex> alpha-momentum-v3

# Help
npx @tradallo/reputation help

NO_COLOR=1 でANSIを無効化します。TRADALLO_BASE_URL でAPIベースを上書きします。

プログラム用クライアント

検証クライアントを独自のTS/JSコードに組み込みます：

import { TradalloClient } from "@tradallo/reputation";

const client = new TradalloClient(); // defaults to https://tradallo.com

// Throws if signature invalid, replay window expired, or pubkey unknown.
// Returns the verified `data` payload (not the envelope wrapper).
const record = await client.getSigned<{ stats: { all_time: { sharpe_ratio: number | null } } }>(
  "/api/v1/agents/alpha-momentum-v3/track-record",
);

if ((record.stats.all_time.sharpe_ratio ?? 0) >= 1.5) {
  // ... delegate capital, copy trades, etc.
}

検証フローは getSigned の内部で行われます。署名エラー、期限切れのエンベロープ、不明なキー、スキーマの不一致など、何らかの失敗が発生した場合は呼び出しがスローされます。検証されていないデータが表示されることはありません。

ツール

get_track_record(handle, principal_type?)

Tradalloプロファイルまたはエージェントの検証済みトラックレコードを取得します。

入力:

  • handle (string, 必須) — Tradalloハンドル（例: aaronjordan, alpha-momentum-v3）

  • principal_type ("human" | "agent", オプション, デフォルト "agent") — 検索対象の名前空間

戻り値: 完全な署名済みペイロード（検証レベル、全期間 + 直近30/90/365日の統計。シャープレシオ、最大ドローダウン、勝率、PnL、期待値を含む）。

使用例:

"TradalloでAaron Jordanの検証済み取引記録を見せて。"

search_records(filters)

パフォーマンス基準に一致する検証済み記録を検索します。

入力 (すべてオプション): min_sharpe, min_trades, max_drawdown, venue, principal_type, sort_by, limit。

戻り値: 統計情報を含む人間/エージェントの要約のソート済みリスト。署名検証済み。

verify_utr(utr_hash)

ハッシュでユニバーサル取引レシート（UTR）を検索します。TradalloがそのハッシュをSolanaメモ経由でオンチェーンにアンカーしているかどうかを返し、アンカーされている場合はチェーン、署名、スロット、posted_at、Solana Explorer URL、公証人の公開鍵を返します。これにより、呼び出し元はオンチェーンで独自に検証できます。

戻り値: { found, anchored_on_chain, chain?, signature?, slot?, posted_at?, explorer_url?, notarizer_pubkey? }。

get_versions(agent_handle)

エージェントの完全なバージョン履歴（セマンティックバージョニングタグ、version_hash、policy_hash、各バージョンがデプロイおよび置換された日時）を取得します。署名検証済み。

get_utrs(agent_handle, since?, limit?)

エージェントの生のユニバーサル取引レシートを、closed_at を基準としたページネーションカーソル形式で取得します。各レシートにはTradalloによって再計算されたSHA-256ハッシュが含まれており、消費者は個々の記録をスポットチェックできます。

検証の仕組み

すべての署名済みTradallo APIレスポンスは、データをJCS正規化（RFC 8785）されたエンベロープでラップし、ed25519署名を付与します：

{
  "data": { ... },
  "schema_version": "1",
  "served_at": "2026-04-30T22:29:52.776Z",
  "max_age_seconds": 60,
  "signature": {
    "alg": "ed25519",
    "key_id": "tradallo-prod-2026-04",
    "sig": "<base64>"
  }
}

このMCPサーバーは以下の処理を行います：

  1. /.well-known/tradallo-pubkeys.json を取得（5分間キャッシュ）

  2. signature.key_id をed25519公開鍵に解決

  3. {data, schema_version, served_at, max_age_seconds} をJCS正規化

  4. 公開鍵に対して署名を検証

  5. now > served_at + max_age_seconds の場合にレスポンスを拒否（リプレイ攻撃保護）

チェックが失敗した場合、ツール呼び出しはデータを返さずエラーを返します。エージェントにはその理由が通知されます。

なぜこれが重要なのか

アイデンティティ（エージェントが誰であるか）と支払い（どのように支払うか）は、2026年までにx402、MPP、Coinbase Agentic Wallets、ERC-8004によって解決されます。レピュテーションは解決されていません。 エージェントが資本の委任、コピートレード、または他者からのシグナル購読を決定する際、「その記録は本物か？」と問う方法が必要です。

このMCPサーバーは、その問いに対する最も摩擦の少ない方法です。

x402 — 今後の展望

現在、パブリックAPIは匿名でIPレート制限（60リクエスト/分）があります。私たちは、HTTP 402 Payment Required標準である x402 を通じた段階的なアクセスを導入しています。これにより、エージェントはBase上でUSDCのマイクロトランザクションを支払い、サインアップやAPIキーの管理なしでレート制限を回避し、より高いスループットのティアをアンロックできるようになります。

将来の互換性に関する期待：

  • 匿名: 60リクエスト/分/IP（現在、無料）

  • アクティブ購読者: APIキー経由で600リクエスト/分（開発中 — フェーズ4.4）

  • x402マイクロペイメント: 一回限りの重いクエリに対する呼び出しごとのUSDC支払い。アカウント不要（フェーズ4.5で計画）

  • オペレーター / フリートティア: Webhook購読、カスタムサブドメイン、優先インデックス作成

レート制限のレスポンスには、ファシリテーターパイプラインが接続され次第、x402 支払いオプションブロックが追加されます。このMCPサーバーは、x402メタデータを含む402を確認すると自動支払いを開始します。それまでは、すべてのクエリは無料かつ検証可能です。

リファレンスエージェント

資本を委任する前にTradalloにクエリを行う動作するエージェントの例： github.com/tradallo/agent。

仕様とドキュメント

変更履歴

CHANGELOG.md を参照してください。

ライセンス

MIT

Available Tools

5 tools
get_track_recordAInspect

Fetch a verified trading track record for a Tradallo profile (human) or agent. Returns cryptographically-verified statistics (Sharpe, win rate, max drawdown, PnL, trade count) computed from on-chain or in-house-sim trade history. The signature is ed25519-verified against Tradallo's published pubkey before this tool returns.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
handleYesThe Tradallo handle to look up (e.g. 'aaronjordan' for a human, 'alpha-momentum-v3' for an agent).
principal_typeNoWhether the handle is a human profile or an agent. Defaults to 'agent' (the more common reputation-query use case).

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that statistics are cryptographically-verified and signature-verified before return, and mentions computation from on-chain or in-house-sim history. Does not cover potential errors or permissions.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with purpose and key details.

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?

No output schema, but description lists return values (Sharpe, win rate, etc.) and explains verification process. Missing pagination or rate limits, but adequate for a simple fetch 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 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 the tool fetches a verified trading track record for a Tradallo profile (human or agent) and lists the statistics returned. It distinguishes from siblings like get_utrs and verify_utr by focusing on track record data.

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 implies the tool should be used when a verified track record is needed, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not scenarios. Sibling tools have different purposes, so context is clear.

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

get_utrsAInspect

Fetch raw Universal Trade Receipts for an agent. Each UTR is a v2 canonical receipt with its SHA-256 hash recomputed by Tradallo so consumers can spot-check individual receipts. Paginated cursor-style on closed_at.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agent_handleYesThe agent's handle.
sinceNoISO timestamp; only return UTRs closed at or after this. Defaults to the agent's anchor.
limitNoPage size (default 100, max 500).

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that each UTR's SHA-256 hash is recomputed for spot-checking, and pagination is cursor-style on closed_at. This reveals behavioral traits beyond a simple fetch, though auth requirements and side effects are not mentioned.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by relevant detail and pagination. No redundant information, every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given no output schema, the description does not fully explain return format or pagination details like cursor handling. It mentions 'v2 canonical receipt' and hash, but an agent might need more clarity on response structure. Adequate but with gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only implicitly relating closed_at to the 'since' parameter via pagination mention. No further parameter 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 tool fetches raw Universal Trade Receipts for an agent, specifies the resource and action, and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning it provides v2 canonical receipts with recomputed SHA-256 hashes. It also notes pagination, setting it apart from other tools like verify_utr.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by describing the tool's function but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., get_track_record, verify_utr). No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are provided.

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

get_versionsAInspect

Fetch the full version history of an agent (semver tags, version_hash, policy_hash, when each version was deployed and superseded). Useful for understanding which version of an agent's policy produced a given track record. The response is signature-verified.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agent_handleYesThe agent's handle.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description covers key behaviors: lists return fields and states response is signature-verified. Lacks explicit mention of idempotency or authentication, but sufficient for a read-only fetch.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two focused sentences, no redundant information, front-loaded with action and resource.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers return fields, verification, and a use case. Could specify if history is limited (e.g., pagination), but 'full version history' implies 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% with a clear description for agent_handle. The tool description does not add further information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states it fetches full version history with specific fields (semver, hashes, timestamps), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle track records or UTRs. Includes a use case.

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 useful context: 'useful for understanding which version of an agent's policy produced a given track record.' Does not explicitly exclude other uses or name alternatives, but context is clear.

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

search_recordsAInspect

Search verified trading records by performance filters (Sharpe, max drawdown, trade count, venue, principal type). Returns a list of summary records sorted by the chosen metric. Useful for an agent shopping for strategies that meet specific risk/return criteria. The response is signature-verified against Tradallo's published pubkey before being returned.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
min_sharpeNoMinimum annualized Sharpe ratio.
min_tradesNoMinimum trade count.
max_drawdownNoMaximum drawdown as a fraction (e.g. 0.25 for 25%).
venueNoRestrict to a specific venue (e.g. 'hyperliquid', 'dydx').
principal_typeNo
sort_byNoField to sort results by (descending). Default: net_pnl.
limitNoMax results (default 25, max 100).

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are signature-verified, which is a notable behavioral trait. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or read-only nature, but for a search tool the description is fairly transparent.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and parameters, then adds usage context and verification detail efficiently.

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?

Given no output schema, the description could have detailed the return fields. 'List of summary records' is vague. However, parameter coverage and sibling context make it adequate but not complete.

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 high (86%), so the baseline is 3. The description summarizes the filter parameters but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool searches verified trading records with performance filters and returns sorted summary records. It distinguishes from sibling get/verify tools by focusing on search and filtering.

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 it is useful when shopping for strategies meeting risk/return criteria, providing clear usage context. It does not mention when not to use it or compare to siblings.

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

verify_utrAInspect

Look up a Universal Trade Receipt by hash. Returns whether Tradallo has anchored that hash on-chain via a Solana memo transaction, and if so, returns the chain, signature, slot, posted_at, explorer URL, and notarizer pubkey so the caller can independently verify the anchor on Solana Explorer. The signed-envelope response is ed25519-verified before this tool returns.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
utr_hashYesThe 64-char hex SHA-256 UTR hash to look up.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, description fully carries the burden and discloses that the response indicates anchoring status, returns detailed verification fields, and involves ed25519 verification before returning. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences with front-loaded purpose statement and no redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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?

Adequately explains return fields for a lookup tool with one parameter, though could mention error handling or format of the boolean result.

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?

Single parameter utr_hash; schema already has a complete description (100% coverage). The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool looks up a Universal Trade Receipt by hash and explains the output structure, distinguishing it from siblings like get_utrs and search_records.

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?

Implies use when you have a UTR hash to verify on-chain anchoring; lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context from sibling names provides some guidance.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 5 tool updatesv0.3.2
    • First observedget_track_record
    • First observedget_utrs
    • First observedget_versions
    • First observedsearch_records
    • First observedverify_utr
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Scored across 5 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool serves a clear, distinct purpose: fetching a track record, fetching raw receipts, retrieving version history, searching records by filters, and verifying a receipt's on-chain anchor. No two tools overlap in functionality, and descriptions clearly differentiate them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_track_record, get_utrs, get_versions, search_records, verify_utr), using lowercase with underscores. The naming is predictable and easy to parse.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is ideal for this domain: they cover the core operations (fetching individual records, listing receipts, version history, search, and verification) without unnecessary bloat. The scope is well-defined and each tool earns its place.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides a complete surface for querying and verifying trading reputation data: individual track records, raw receipts, version history, search by filters, and cryptographic verification. No obvious gaps exist for a read-only verification service.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessUnresponsive

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • aip-identity

    The-Nexus-Guard
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    MCP server for AI agent identity — verify agents with Ed25519 signatures, check trust scores, sign and verify content, exchange encrypted messages. Built on the Agent Identity Protocol (AIP).
    8
    MIT

  • AgentTrust

    raditotev
    F
    license
    A
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Reputation and trust scoring service for AI agents, exposed as an MCP server. Evaluate counterparties, report interactions, issue portable trust certificates, and detect Sybil attacks.
    23
    53 PyPI
    -

  • web3-agents-mcp

    hanjoonchoe
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    An MCP server that bridges ERC-8004 agent identity, reputation, and validation registries into tool calls, enabling discovery, inspection, and verification of on-chain AI agents from any MCP client.
    8
    MIT