Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Lubbock

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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: partition filter behavior, semantic similarity threshold (≥0.30 Jaccard), fill check against live CLOB depth, and the exact condition under which a signal should not be traded (realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0). This goes far beyond what annotations provide and creates 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 long, but well-structured with labeled sections (SEMANTIC ANCHOR, PARTITION FILTER, FILL CHECK) and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value, though some details (e.g., exact response fields) are densely packed. Slightly verbose, but the structure keeps it scannable.

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 covers purpose, all three modes, response shape, edge cases, and related tools. It even explains the fill-check behavior and how to interpret edge values. This is a complete picture for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters, but the description enriches meaning significantly. For event, it clarifies it walks child markets and checks date/threshold-axis ordering plus partition sum; for topic, it explains cross-event search and flattening. It also documents the no-arg default. This is high-value semantic context beyond the schema.

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+resource+method: 'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks.' It clearly distinguishes three invocation modes (trending_scan, event, topic) and differentiates from siblings like polymarket_fill_risk, which is referenced for custom sizing. This is a textbook example of purpose clarity.

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?

It explicitly instructs when to use each mode: '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 recommends event for specific markets, explains cross-event mode's advantage over single-event, and points to polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing. This exceeds mere context by providing exclusions and alternatives.

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

All Arcgis Lubbock 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap in purpose, particularly the ask_pipeworx variants (stable, beta, grounded) and deep_research, making it difficult for an agent to choose correctly. Additionally, the Arcgis-specific tools are buried under numerous general Pipeworx tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), but there are minor inconsistencies like ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence and the simpler Arcgis tool names.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the server is overloaded, especially since the majority are Pipeworx meta-tools unrelated to the Arcgis Lubbock purpose. A well-scoped ArcGIS server would have far fewer tools.

Completeness2/5

For an ArcGIS server, only three tools directly serve that purpose (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer), lacking editing, analysis, or visualization capabilities. The remaining tools address a completely different domain.

Resources