Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Eagan

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond that: it walks the CLOB order book, returns a verdict, highlights thin legs, warns about partial basket fills converting arb into unhedged directional positions, and explains how size_usd is interpreted differently across modes. 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 tightly packed with necessary detail, using uppercase mode labels and explicit directive language. Every sentence contributes: mode definitions, parameter interpretations, output field lists, risk rationale, and usage thresholds. For a complex tool with no output schema, this level of density is appropriate, not wasteful.

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, 4 parameters, no output schema, and high-stakes usage, the description is remarkably complete. It covers both modes, all relevant output fields, edge-case risk behavior (per-leg details, thin_legs, forced_directional_risk), and the economic motivation. There are no significant gaps that would prevent an agent from selecting or using this tool correctly.

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?

While the input schema covers all 4 parameters, the description adds critical semantics: the exclusive-or requirement between market and event, the full meaning of side values in each mode, and the dual interpretation of size_usd (max spend vs target proceeds vs settlement notional). This goes far beyond schema descriptions and is essential for correct invocation.

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: "Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth." It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by naming polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges and positioning fill risk as the pre-trade validation step.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is given: "USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500." It also describes two distinct modes (single-market vs basket) and the conditions under which each applies, making alternative selection unambiguous.

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