Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Eagan

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?

Despite annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, the description enriches behavior disclosure with concrete thresholds (e.g., deviations >3pp, Jaccard ≥0.30), filtering rules (placeholder slugs, >20% placeholder returns null), and the FILL CHECK explaining how the signal is priced against live CLOB depth. It also details response fields and the 'do not trade' condition, adding significant context beyond the 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: it flows from general purpose to mode-specific usage, followed by semantic anchor, partition filter, response, and fill check. Each section earns its place given the tool's complexity. It is not overly terse, but every sentence conveys necessary detail, so a 4 is appropriate rather than a 5 for extreme efficiency.

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?

With no output schema, the description entirely covers response contents (opportunities[] and partition_check fields). It explains all three invocation modes, the fill-check caveat, and the relationship to sibling tools. For a tool with two optional parameters and multiple operational modes, this description is thorough and complete, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to misuse it.

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?

The schema coverage is 100% and both `event` and `topic` have descriptions, but the tool description dramatically expands their semantics: it gives slug examples, explains that full URLs are accepted, describes the event traversal and partition check, and details the topic's cross-event search and similarity requirements. This far exceeds the baseline expectation for high schema coverage.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks.' It clearly distinguishes three modes (`trending_scan`, `event`, `topic`) and differentiates from sibling tools like `polymarket_fill_risk` by pointing to it for custom sizing. The purpose is unambiguous and mode-specific.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance for each invocation style: 'Call with NO args for a trending_scan', 'pass `event` for the strongest per-event partition_check', or '`topic` for a themed cross-event scan.' It also explains tradeoffs (e.g., cross-event catches date patterns single-event misses), when not to trade (`realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0 … do not trade it`), and refers to an alternative (`polymarket_fill_risk`). No exclusions are omitted.

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

All Arcgis Eagan 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool groups overlap heavily: the three ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) differ mainly in guarantees, and six Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) all target the same trading-concept space with fuzzy boundaries. While ArcGIS, memory, and subscription tools are distinct, an agent will frequently struggle to pick the right research or analysis tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

All names are snake_case, but the structural pattern is inconsistent. Some are verb-first (query_layer, search_datasets, validate_claim), others are noun-first or domain-prefixed (entity_profile, layer_info, polymarket_edges, recent_alerts, pipeworx_feedback). There is no predictable verb_noun convention across the set, making it hard to guess a tool's name from its function.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the set is well above the typical focused-server range, and the server name 'Arcgis Eagan' suggests a narrow GIS purpose while only 3–4 tools are actually ArcGIS-related. The remaining ~30 tools form a broad, unrelated utility collection (Pipeworx data, memory, subscriptions, trending, npm scanning), making the count feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

For the primary ArcGIS domain, only search, layer inspection, and querying are supported — there are no create, update, delete, or editing tools, leaving obvious lifecycle gaps. Meanwhile, the Pipeworx side is over-stocked with redundant analysis tools, and the overall mix lacks a coherent coverage story for any single stated purpose.

Resources