Skip to main content
Glama

Api Ninjas

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "event"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "topic"
-    ]
-  }
-]
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "event"
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "topic"
+    ]
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / event / description
      Previous value: -"Single-event mode: Polymarket event slug (e.g. \"when-will-bitcoin-hit-150k\") or full URL."New value: +"Single-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."
    • changedInput schema / properties / topic / description
      Previous value: -"Cross-event mode: a topic or seed question. Tool searches Polymarket for related markets across separate events and checks monotonicity across them. E.g. \"Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal\"."New value: +"Cross-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."
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses extensive behavioral details beyond annotations: explains monotonicity checks, partition sum verification, Jaccard similarity threshold (0.30), partition filter (placeholder slugs), fill check via polymarket_fill_risk, and conditions for no-trade (realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0). No contradiction with readOnlyHint and other 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?

Description is relatively long but well-structured: starts with main purpose, then details each mode, then technical specifics. Each section earns its place given tool complexity. Could be slightly more concise, but front-loads essential info.

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 no output schema, description details response structure (opportunities[], partition_check, fill check) and mentions custom sizing tool. Covers all relevant aspects for agent invocation: input modes, internal logic, response format, and caveats.

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% with descriptions, but the description adds substantial meaning: clarifies the purpose of each parameter, how event slugs and topic seeds are used, and the algorithmic behavior (similarity checks, filters, response structure). Beyond baseline 3.

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 the tool finds arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks, distinguishing between three modes (trending_scan, event, topic). It differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_fill_risk by its unique functionality.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use each mode: trending_scan for top markets, event for a specific market slug, topic for cross-event scans. Recommends event for specific markets and notes that cross-event catches patterns single-event misses. Also directs to polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing.

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

All Api Ninjas 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct roles, but there is meaningful overlap among the question-answering family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and among the Polymarket analysis tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk). The long descriptions help separate them, but the boundaries are still subtle enough that an agent could easily pick the wrong variant.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming is mostly snake_case and generally follows a verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity, scan_dependency, validate_claim). Deviations like entity_profile, recent_alerts, recent_changes, and bare verbs (forget, recall, remember, subscribe, unsubscribe) are minor and do not seriously harm predictability.

Tool Count3/5

31 tools is heavy for a single server and suggests the surface is a bundled platform (data queries, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI-visibility checks) rather than one tightly scoped domain. Each tool has a rational purpose, but the sheer count plus several meta/didactic tools makes the set feel somewhat oversized.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are well covered: entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, grounded lookup, fact-checking, deep research, memory CRUD, and subscription lifecycle. Gaps are minor. There are no update operations for subscriptions, and some optional data sources degrade softly, but agents can accomplish the intended research, monitoring, and memory tasks without dead ends.

Resources