Skip to main content
Glama

Barcelona Events

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) already indicate a safe read operation. The description adds significant behavioral context: walks child markets, checks date-axis/threshold-axis ordering, partition sum should ≈1, deviations >3pp emit signal, semantic anchor with Jaccard similarity, partition filter for placeholders, and fill check against live CLOB depth. 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 information-dense and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, then each mode is explained, followed by sub-features (semantic anchor, partition filter, fill check). It is not overly concise but every sentence adds value, making it appropriate for the complexity without being verbose.

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 moderate complexity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description thoroughly covers all aspects: purpose, argument modes with examples, algorithmic details (Jaccard similarity, placeholder filter, fill check), and return structure (opportunities[], partition_check, fill_check). It also references a sibling tool for custom sizing, making it self-contained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining why to use each mode, providing example slugs, and detailing the algorithmic behavior (e.g., partition_check, semantic anchor, fill check). This justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 starts with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, and polymarket_kalshi_spread by focusing on arbitrage detection with unique methods.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each of the three modes (no args, event, topic) with examples and explains the limitations (e.g., Jaccard similarity threshold, placeholder filter). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the clarity of the modes and references to polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing suffices.

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

All Barcelona Events 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer factual queries with subtle differences, and the Polymarket suite (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker) has fine-grained distinctions that are hard to separate. The single Barcelona events tool is isolated and unrelated to the rest, adding to agent confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tool names use snake_case and many follow a verb_noun pattern, but there are notable inconsistencies: noun-first names (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage, pipeworx_trending) and modifiers like beta/grounded on ask_pipeworx introduce non-uniformity. Overall the set is readable but not consistently predictable.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools, the set is beyond the well-scoped 3-15 range. The count is especially inappropriate for a server named 'Barcelona Events' because only one tool actually relates to Barcelona events; the other 31 are a broad data-research and utility collection with no clear connection to the server's apparent purpose.

Completeness1/5

For a server named 'Barcelona Events', the surface is severely incomplete: it offers a single events search tool with no create, update, delete, detail, venue, or organizer operations. Even interpreting the domain broadly, the mismatch between the server name and the tool set leaves a critical gap between user expectation and actual capability.

Resources