Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Marioncountyor

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds substantial behavioral context. It discloses internal thresholds (3pp partition deviation, 0.30 Jaccard similarity, 20% placeholder fraction), describes the fill-check distinction between theoretical and realizable edge, and explicitly warns 'do not trade it' when the edge isn't in the book. This is far beyond what annotations provide.

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-organized with labeled sections (SEMANTIC ANCHOR, PARTITION FILTER, FILL CHECK) and front-loaded purpose. Every block carries operational detail necessary for correct use, and the density is justified by the tool's two-mode complexity. It is not wasteful, though it is more verbose than the simplest tools.

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 read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation modes, filtering rules, response shape, edge cases (skipped_low_similarity, placeholder filtering), and the fill-check caveat with a clear no-trade condition. It also directs users to polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing, making the tool's boundaries and limitations clear. This is a complete operational picture.

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%, but the description adds major meaning beyond the schema. It explains when to use event versus topic, provides concrete slug and seed question examples, notes that full Polymarket URLs are accepted, and details what each parameter triggers (child-market partition check vs. cross-event flattening and comparator). This is rich semantic enrichment, not just a restatement of parameter names.

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: 'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks.' It clearly distinguishes the tool's three modes (trending_scan, event, topic) and differentiates it from siblings by naming polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing, making the tool's unique role obvious.

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 gives explicit conditional guidance: 'Call with NO args for a trending_scan... pass event for... or topic for...' and recommends event for a specific market and topic for cross-event scanning. It also explains when cross-event mode adds value and points to polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing. It doesn't enumerate all sibling alternatives, but the main usage paths are clearly laid out.

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

All Arcgis Marioncountyor 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that specify when to use each. Even overlapping functions like ask_pipeworx varieties are well-differentiated by mode (casual vs grounded vs multi-source).

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tool names follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., query_layer, resolve_entity), but a few deviate with single-word verbs (forget, remember, recall) or noun_noun (layer_info). The pattern is mostly consistent with minor exceptions.

Tool Count3/5

With 33 tools, the count is high and borders on heavy. However, the tools span multiple domains (GIS, financial data, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions), and each serves a unique role, so the count is justifiable but could be streamlined.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a broad range of data access and analysis tasks relevant to the inferred domain of a multi-purpose assistant. While the ArcGIS portion is limited, the overall surface is well-populated with few obvious gaps.

Resources