Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Albuquerque

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 the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses the computational behavior: it walks the order-book ladder, computes VWAP fill prices, returns a verdict, and identifies forced directional risk. It explains that size_usd means different things in each mode and how partial fills convert an arb into a directional position. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is long but every sentence carries information. It uses clear section headers (SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET) and lists outputs in a scannable way. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and ends with the use-case recommendation. No filler or repetition.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly lists all return fields per mode, explains edge cases (thin legs, forced_directional_risk, max_clean_notional_usd), and states the protocol requirements (one of market/event). It leaves little ambiguity about behavior or outputs, making it highly complete given the tool's complexity.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description significantly enriches parameter semantics. It clarifies mutual exclusivity/requirement of market vs event, defines side options and defaults for each mode, explains size_usd semantics (max spend vs target proceeds vs settlement notional), and mentions the default/clamp. This far exceeds the schema descriptions.

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 verb+resource: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It then details two modes (single-market and basket) and explicitly references sibling tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges) to differentiate its role as the pre-trade risk check. This clearly separates it from the sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit 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 (theoretical overround on thin books is not capturable; partial basket fills create directional risk). However, it doesn't name alternatives for when not to use it, and the 'when-not' is only implied by the threshold, so it stops short of a fully explicit 5.

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

All Arcgis Albuquerque 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are documented as functionally identical right now, and polymarket_arbitrage / polymarket_edges / polymarket_edge_tracker all surface trade opportunities with similar outputs. discover_tools and suggest_questions also cover similar 'what can I do' territory.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and many use verb_noun (query_layer, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt), but a large minority use noun/adjective phrases (layer_info, recent_changes, polymarket_edges, bet_research) or bare verbs (remember, forget, recall). The pattern is readable but not fully predictable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is over the 25-tool threshold and deeply mismatched with the server name: only 3 of them (search_datasets, query_layer, layer_info) relate to ArcGIS Albuquerque. Most of the surface is a general-purpose Pipeworx data platform, making the set bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

The advertised ArcGIS domain has only search-schema-query coverage: there is no way to list all datasets, apply spatial filters, or get service-level metadata. The Pipeworx half is feature-rich, but for the server as titled the tool surface has significant gaps and a large amount of irrelevant functionality.

Resources