Skip to main content
Glama

Abuseipdb

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Polymarket Arbitrage

polymarket_arbitrage
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks. Call with NO args for a trending_scan of the top ~200 markets by weekly volume; pass event for the strongest per-event partition_check, or topic for a themed cross-event scan. event (recommended for a specific market): pass a Polymarket event slug like "fed-decision-may-2026" or "when-will-bitcoin-hit-150k"; walks child markets, checks date-axis / threshold-axis ordering AND computes the partition_check (sum of YES prices across mutually-exclusive legs — should ≈1; deviations >3pp emit a BUY/SELL EVERY LEG signal). topic (for cross-event scanning): pass a seed question like "Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal" or "Fed rate decision"; searches related events across the platform, flattens markets, runs the comparator on the union. Cross-event mode catches "...by May 31" vs "...by Jun 30" patterns that single-event misses. SEMANTIC ANCHOR: cross-event pairs require ≥0.30 Jaccard similarity on question tokens (prevents Powell-Fed-Pause being paired with Powell-DOJ-probe); skipped_low_similarity surfaces the rejected pair count. PARTITION FILTER: drops will-person-X / will-manager-Y / will-someone-else- placeholder slugs; partitions with >20% placeholder fraction return null arb signal. Response: opportunities[] (gap_pp, suggested_trade, reasoning, monotonicity violation context), and in event mode partition_check{sum_yes_prices, gap_from_1, placeholders_filtered, suggested_trade}. FILL CHECK: when the partition signal fires, arbitrage.fill_check prices it against live CLOB depth (theoretical_edge_pp_at_book vs realizable_edge_pp at 1000 shares/leg, thin_legs[]) — realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0 means the overround exists only at last-trade, not in the book; do not trade it. For custom sizing use polymarket_fill_risk.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eventNoSingle-event mode (use this if you know the specific Polymarket event): event slug like "fed-decision-may-2026" or "when-will-bitcoin-hit-150k". Full Polymarket URLs also accepted.
topicNoCross-event mode (use this if you want to scan related events across the platform): a topic or seed question like "Fed rate decision" or "Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal". Tool searches Polymarket for related events and checks monotonicity across them.

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds substantial context beyond these hints: it explains the semantic anchor (Jaccard similarity ≥0.30), partition filter (placeholder slugs, >20% placeholder fraction returns null), the fill check process (theoretical vs realizable edge at 1000 shares/leg), and the exact response fields. It also discloses limitations like realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0 meaning the edge exists only at last-trade. This goes far beyond annotations.

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 long but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, then each mode is explained, followed by labeled sections (SEMANTIC ANCHOR, PARTITION FILTER, FILL CHECK) that are highly specific. The structure uses capitalized headers for readability, and there is no redundant or overlapping content. For a tool with this complexity, the length is appropriate.

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 that there is no output schema, the description must fully explain return values and behavior. It covers the response structure for all modes (opportunities[], partition_check), explains the trending_scan default, and details the fill check mechanism. With 2 optional parameters and rich annotations, the description is exceptionally complete, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the schema descriptions already cover 100% of parameters, the tool description enriches them significantly. It gives concrete examples for event ('fed-decision-may-2026', 'when-will-bitcoin-hit-150k') and for topic ('Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal'), explains the difference between single-event and cross-event scanning, and notes that full Polymarket URLs are accepted. This adds meaning well beyond the baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like polymarket_edges and polymarket_fill_risk by focusing on arbitrage detection and referencing fill check and custom sizing. The three invocation modes (no args, event, topic) are explicitly described, further clarifying scope.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call with NO args for a trending_scan... pass event for the strongest per-event partition_check, or topic for a themed cross-event scan.' It labels event as 'recommended for a specific market' and explains the trade-offs between modes. It also references polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing, signaling when to use that alternative, and warns against trading when fill check shows non-realizable edge.

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

All Abuseipdb 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are clearly distinct, but there are several overlapping clusters: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are near-duplicates today, the Polymarket tools (edges, arbitrage, fill_risk, bet_research) have partially overlapping discovery purposes, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap on single vs multi-entity checks. These overlaps create real misselection risk, though the rest of the set splits cleanly.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and readable, but conventions vary noticeably: verb_noun for actions (check_ip, report_ip, list_subscriptions), domain-prefixed nouns for the Polymarket cluster (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage), and brand-prefixed meta tools (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_feedback). Subfamilies are internally consistent, but the overall set mixes patterns.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is already past the heavy threshold, but the bigger issue is the server name: Abuseipdb should have a handful of IP-abuse tools, yet only 3 of 34 actually relate to AbuseIPDB. The remaining 31 tools form an unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket/memory suite, making the count wildly inappropriate for the apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the declared AbuseIPDB domain, only check, report, and blacklist are covered; obvious gaps remain like removing/clearing a false report, bulk IP checks, or category metadata. The broader set is a grab bag of unrelated capabilities, so no single domain gets complete lifecycle coverage, and the nominal AbuseIPDB surface is thin and diluted.

Resources