Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Tucson

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 indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds rich behavioral details: walks order book ladder, returns fill prices, slippage, verdict, and for baskets, capture ratio, thin legs, forced directional risk, and warns about unhedged positions. 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?

Description is lengthy but well-structured: starts with core purpose, then REQUIRES, then details both modes, outputs, usage note. Every sentence adds value; length is justified by tool 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?

Covers all necessary aspects: purpose, modes, parameters, return fields (no output schema, so description provides all fields), usage guidance, and risk warnings. Annotations handle safety; description handles the rest.

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%, and description adds significant context: distinguishes market vs event modes, explains side defaults (auto for basket), clarifies size_usd interpretation (spend vs target proceeds, settlement notional), and notes clamp range 10-1,000,000.

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?

Clearly states the tool checks realizable-vs-theoretical edge against order-book depth, distinguishing between single-market and basket modes. Explicitly ties usage to sibling tools polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges, providing clear differentiation.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. Also explains consequences of not using it (partial fills leading to unhedged positions).

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

All Arcgis Tucson 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

While individual tool descriptions are detailed and specific, the set includes overlapping tools like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, and several prediction market tools with similar purposes (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage). The broad range of unrelated domains means many tools are distinct, but some pairs are ambiguous.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names use snake_case but follow no consistent pattern. Some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, query_layer), some noun_verb (ai_visibility_check, entity_profile), and some have inconsistent structure (discover_tools, recent_alerts). The mix of conventions reduces predictability.

Tool Count1/5

33 tools is excessive for a server named 'Arcgis Tucson', as only 3 tools relate to ArcGIS (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer). The rest span completely unrelated domains (Pipeworx data, Polymarket, memory, npm scanning, etc.), creating a severe mismatch between server name and tool functionality.

Completeness3/5

Considering the actual tool surface (a diverse data retrieval and prediction market analysis set), it is reasonably complete for common lookups (SEC, FDA, economics, news, bets). However, it lacks web search and the ArcGIS tools are minimal. The absence of a cohesive domain makes completeness hard to judge, but for the implied data-retrieval purpose, it's passable.

Resources