Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
tradallo

tradallo-reputation

Official
by tradallo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussions(1)Admin
TypeScript
Remote

@tradallo/reputation

npm version license MCP

用于 Tradallo 验证记录协议 的 MCP 服务器 + TypeScript 客户端 + CLI。提供三种查询经加密验证的人类和代理交易记录的方式：

# 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";

每个响应在呈现前都会根据 Tradallo 发布在 tradallo.com/.well-known/tradallo-pubkeys.json 的公钥进行 JCS 规范化 + ed25519 验证。签名位于信封中；此客户端获取公钥注册表，解析 key_id，验证签名，然后才返回数据。通过 served_at + max_age_seconds 提供重放保护。

安装

Claude Desktop

添加到你的 claude_desktop_config.json（设置 → 开发者 → 编辑配置）：

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

重启 Claude Desktop。Tradallo 工具应出现在工具面板中。

Cursor

添加到 ~/.cursor/mcp.json（或通过 Cursor 设置 → MCP）：

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

通用 MCP 客户端

npx @tradallo/reputation

通过 stdio 进行 MCP 通信。

本地开发 / 测试环境

通过设置 TRADALLO_BASE_URL 指向你自己的部署：

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

Related MCP server: aip-identity

CLI

该二进制文件在调用子命令时也可作为终端 CLI 使用：

# 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 可禁用 ANSI。TRADALLO_BASE_URL 会覆盖 API 基地址。

编程客户端

将验证客户端嵌入到你自己的 TS/JS 代码中：

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.
}

验证流程发生在 getSigned 内部。如果出现任何失败（签名错误、信封过期、未知密钥、模式不匹配），调用将抛出异常。你永远不会看到未经验证的数据。

工具

get_track_record(handle, principal_type?)

获取 Tradallo 个人资料或代理的已验证业绩记录。

输入：

  • handle (string, 必填) — Tradallo 句柄（例如 aaronjordan, alpha-momentum-v3）

  • principal_type ("human" | "agent", 可选, 默认 "agent") — 要查找的命名空间

返回： 完整的签名载荷（验证级别、历史总计 + 滚动 30/90/365 天统计数据，包括夏普比率、最大回撤、胜率、盈亏、期望值）。

使用示例：

"向我展示 Aaron Jordan 在 Tradallo 上的已验证交易记录。"

search_records(filters)

发现符合绩效标准的已验证记录。

输入（均为可选）： min_sharpe, min_trades, max_drawdown, venue, principal_type, sort_by, limit。

返回： 带有统计数据的人类/代理摘要的排序列表。签名已验证。

verify_utr(utr_hash)

通过哈希查找通用交易收据 (UTR)。返回 Tradallo 是否已通过 Solana 备注将该哈希锚定在链上，如果是，则返回链、签名、槽位、发布时间、Solana 浏览器 URL 和公证人公钥，以便调用者可以独立进行链上验证。

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

get_versions(agent_handle)

获取代理的完整版本历史（语义化版本标签、version_hash、policy_hash、每个版本的部署和被取代时间）。签名已验证。

get_utrs(agent_handle, since?, limit?)

获取代理的原始通用交易收据，按 closed_at 进行游标分页。每张收据都包含由 Tradallo 重新计算的 SHA-256 哈希，以便消费者可以抽查单条记录。

验证工作原理

每个已签名的 Tradallo API 响应都将数据封装在带有 ed25519 签名的 JCS 规范化 (RFC 8785) 信封中：

{
  "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>"
  }
}

此 MCP 服务器：

  1. 获取 /.well-known/tradallo-pubkeys.json（缓存 5 分钟）

  2. 解析 signature.key_id → ed25519 公钥

  3. 对 {data, schema_version, served_at, max_age_seconds} 进行 JCS 规范化

  4. 根据公钥验证签名

  5. 拒绝 now > served_at + max_age_seconds 的响应（重放保护）

如果任何检查失败，工具调用将返回错误而不是数据。代理会被告知原因。

为什么这很重要

身份（代理是谁）和支付（如何支付）在 2026 年已通过 x402、MPP、Coinbase Agentic Wallets 和 ERC-8004 得到解决。声誉则不然。 当代理决定是否委托资本、复制交易或订阅来自另一方的信号时，它需要一种方式来询问：“他们的记录是真的吗？”

此 MCP 服务器是提出该问题的最低摩擦方式。

x402 — 即将推出

目前，公共 API 是匿名的且受 IP 速率限制（60 次请求/分钟）。我们正在通过 x402（HTTP 402 付费标准）推出分级访问，以便代理可以在 Base 上支付 USDC 微交易，从而绕过速率限制并解锁更高吞吐量的层级，无需任何注册或 API 密钥操作。

前向兼容的预期：

  • 匿名：60 次请求/分钟/IP（目前，免费）

  • 活跃订阅者：通过 API 密钥 600 次请求/分钟（开发中 — 阶段 4.4）

  • x402 微支付：针对单次重型查询的按调用 USDC 支付；无需账户（计划于阶段 4.5）

  • 运营商/车队层级：Webhook 订阅、自定义子域名、优先级索引

一旦促进器管道连接完毕，速率限制响应将获得一个 x402 支付选项块。此 MCP 服务器将在看到带有 x402 元数据的 402 响应时开始自动支付。在此之前，所有查询都是免费且可验证的。

参考代理

一个在委托资本前查询 Tradallo 的工作示例代理： github.com/tradallo/agent。

规范与文档

更新日志

参见 CHANGELOG.md。

许可证

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