Skip to main content
Glama

Alchemy Eth

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint:true, but the description adds rich behavioral detail beyond that: it 'walks the ladder', returns fields like top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, and warns about forced_directional_risk and thin_legs. 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 dense and information-rich, with clear mode sections and uppercase keywords, but it is a single long paragraph that could be better structured with bullets or subheadings. It earns its place but is slightly verbose.

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 the tool's complexity and absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers both modes, expected output fields, risk warnings, and usage context, including the most common failure mode. No critical information is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains side defaults per mode, size_usd interpreted as 'max spend on buys, target proceeds on sells' in single-market and 'settlement notional' in basket mode, plus the clamp range. This goes 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 opens with 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly differentiates from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by focusing on whether theoretical edges are actually capturable given order-book depth.

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 explicitly states 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500' and explains why ('theoretical overround on thin books is not capturable, and partial basket fills convert an arb into an unhedged directional position'). This is explicit when-to-use guidance.

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

All Alchemy Eth 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

C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently described as identical), ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve question-answering/research, and the six Polymarket tools heavily overlap in finding and evaluating trading edges. Individual descriptions are detailed, but an agent could easily route to the wrong variant.

Naming Consistency2/5

The set mixes conventions: Pipeworx tools mostly use verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity), but memory tools are bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), and the Ethereum tools are inconsistent (nft_metadata vs nfts_owned vs nft_owners, token_balances vs token_allowance). The lack of a uniform pattern makes the surface harder to predict.

Tool Count2/5

At 40 tools, the server is oversized for the apparent core purpose of an Alchemy Ethereum interface. There is also significant redundancy: multiple ask/deep-research entry points and a dense suite of Polymarket analysis tools add bulk that could be consolidated.

Completeness2/5

The Ethereum side is mostly read-only convenience wrappers (NFTs, tokens, asset transfers) plus a generic eth_call catch-all, but lacks dedicated transaction sending, block/transaction detail, logs, or ENS conveniences. The rest of the tool surface is a sprawling collection of unrelated data-research, memory, and subscription features, making the overall implied domain incoherent and likely to leave obvious gaps for users expecting a focused Ethereum server.

Resources