Skip to main content
Glama

Abuseipdb

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Polymarket Fill Risk

polymarket_fill_risk
Read-onlyIdempotent

Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth. REQUIRES one of market (single-market mode) or event (basket/partition mode). SINGLE-MARKET: pass a market slug/URL + side (buy_yes|sell_yes|buy_no|sell_no, default buy_yes) + size_usd (default 1000 — max spend on buys, target proceeds on sells); walks the ladder and returns top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, max_fillable_usd, and a verdict (clean|degraded|cannot_fill). BASKET: pass an event slug/URL + side (sell_yes = capture overround by selling every leg, buy_yes = capture underround; default auto from partition sum) + size_usd interpreted as settlement notional S (shares per leg; each share pays $1); returns theoretical_sum vs realizable_sum (top-of-book vs VWAP across all legs), capture_ratio, profit_usd at executed size, per-leg fill detail, thin_legs[], max_clean_notional_usd, and forced_directional_risk naming the legs most likely to strand you unhedged. USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500 — theoretical overround on thin books is not capturable, and partial basket fills convert an arb into an unhedged directional position (the dominant loss mode in real arb-bot P&L).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sideNoSingle-market: buy_yes | sell_yes | buy_no | sell_no (default buy_yes). Basket: sell_yes | buy_yes (default auto — sell if partition sum > 1, buy if < 1).
eventNoBasket mode: event slug or full polymarket.com URL — checks every leg of the partition.
marketNoSingle-market mode: market slug or full polymarket.com URL.
size_usdNoSingle-market: USD to spend (buys) or target proceeds (sells). Basket: settlement notional — shares per leg, each paying $1 at resolution. Default 1000, clamp 10–1,000,000.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description discloses detailed runtime behavior: walks the order-book ladder, returns specific fields per mode, interprets size_usd differently for buys/sells/basket, and warns about partial-fill risks. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is long but well-structured with clear SINGLE-MARKET and BASKET sections, a front-loaded purpose, and every sentence contributes necessary detail. It is somewhat dense, but the complexity of the tool justifies the length.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates all return fields for both modes, explains defaults, mode selection, and risk implications (thin legs, forced directional risk). It covers edge cases and the tool's operational context thoroughly, making it complete for correct invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and descriptions are already rich, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the mutual exclusivity of market vs event ('REQUIRES one of'), and refining size_usd semantics with concrete examples (max spend vs target proceeds, settlement notional). This goes beyond schema wording.

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 opens with a precise purpose: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It clearly distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, and explicitly references sibling tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges) to differentiate its role.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also explains why (partial fills on thin books convert arb into unhedged directional positions), giving both positive and negative use context.

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