Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Lancaster

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint:true and destructiveHint:false, and the description adds rich behavioral context: it walks the CLOB ladder, returns top-of-book and VWAP fills, computes slippage, and highlights the danger of partial basket fills converting an arb into an unhedged directional position. No contradictions 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a long but well-organized block, front-loaded with the purpose and then clearly separated into REQUIRES, SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET, and USE-THIS sections. Some redundancy exists in repeating the 'theoretical overround on thin books is not capturable' point, but the density is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 compensates by enumerating return fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, max_fillable_usd, verdict, and comprehensive basket-mode outputs), covering mode-specific behavior, defaults, and the key failure mode. This is a complete picture for a complex, high-risk 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?

Even though schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds essential semantic distinctions across modes: size_usd is 'max spend on buys, target proceeds on sells' in single-market mode but 'settlement notional S (shares per leg)' in basket mode, plus defaults and clamp behavior. This goes far beyond the schema's field 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 opening line 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this fill-risk verification tool from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges. It also enumerates the specific modes (single-market and basket) and the distinct risk it addresses.

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 states when to use it: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. It also explains the trade-off between theoretical and realizable edge, making the usage context clear and actionable.

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

All Arcgis Lancaster 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 tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, and ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve as query/discovery entry points. Polymarket tools also blur together (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk). While many tools have distinct purposes, these overlapping clusters create real misselection risk.

Naming Consistency2/5

All names are snake_case but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, search_datasets, validate_claim), some are noun_verb (query_layer, layer_info is noun_noun), and some are single vague words (forget, recall, remember). No consistent verb_prefix or resource_suffix convention, and the mix of meta-tools vs data tools makes the naming feel arbitrary.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is far too many for a server ostensibly named 'Arcgis Lancaster' — only 3 tools relate to GIS. The bulk is an unrelated general-purpose data/prediction-market toolkit, making the count excessive for the apparent scope. Even as a broad data toolset, 34 tools is on the heavy side and would benefit from splitting into focused servers.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface is a grab bag with no coherent domain, so completeness is hard to assess and clearly lopsided. GIS functionality has search/query/info but no lifecycle management, while the data side has many query/analysis tools but no create/update/delete operations except for subscriptions and memory. Obvious gaps exist for a 'Lancaster' server (e.g., no layer creation, editing, or spatial analysis tools), and the unrelated tools make the set feel incomplete for any single stated purpose.

Resources