Skip to main content
Glama

Arbeitnow

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds extensive behavioral context: return format (opportunities[], partition_check), fill check logic (prices against CLOB depth, realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0 means do not trade), semantic anchor, and partition filter. 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is comprehensive but slightly long; however, every sentence adds unique value. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then details modes. Could be tightened by removing redundant mentions of 'recommended' but still clear and well-structured.

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 complexity of arbitrage detection with multiple modes, fill checks, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information: what it returns, how it works, when to use each mode, and what to do for custom sizing. An agent can confidently select and invoke the tool.

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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds examples of event slugs and topic seed questions, explains the behavioral difference between modes, and provides context on how parameters affect the scan (e.g., cross-event mode searches related events).

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 'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks.' It uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling Polymarket tools (e.g., polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk) by focusing on arbitrage detection.

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 explains when to use each mode: no args for trending_scan, 'event' for a specific market (recommended with example slugs), 'topic' for cross-event scanning. It also mentions cross-event mode catches patterns missed by single-event mode and 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 Arbeitnow 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from job searching to company research to bet analysis. Even closely related tools like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded are differentiated by one being hallucination-resistant. Memory and subscription tools are clearly separated.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., search_jobs, validate_claim, subscribe). However, some tools like pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, entity_profile deviate with noun_noun or proper noun patterns, creating minor inconsistency.

Tool Count4/5

29 tools is above the typical 3-15 range, but the server covers a wide breadth of domains (jobs, company data, betting, memory, monitoring) so each tool earns its place. Slightly over-scoped but reasonable.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers many domains but has notable gaps. For jobs, only search/list/get exist (no create/update/delete). For company data, update is missing. For betting, there is analysis but no placement. The set is broad but not deeply complete for any single domain.

Resources