Skip to main content
Glama

Barcelona Events

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds rich behavioral details: walking the ladder, returning specific fields, explaining basket mode risks, and alerting about forced directional risk. No contradiction 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?

While dense and informative, the description is a single paragraph that could benefit from bullet points or clearer section breaks. However, every sentence earns its place and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. Efficient given the complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly lists return fields for both modes (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc. for single-market; theoretical_sum, capture_ratio, thin_legs, etc. for basket). It explains the dominant loss mode (partial fills). Missing error conditions or input validation details, but acceptable for a check tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with property descriptions, but the tool description adds valuable context beyond schema: explains default behavior for basket side ('auto from partition sum'), clarifies size_usd interpretation (max spend vs target proceeds), and provides constraints (clamp 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?

The description clearly states it performs a 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' with two distinct modes (single-market and basket). It differentiates from siblings by explicitly telling the agent to use this tool before acting on 'polymarket_arbitrage' or 'polymarket_edges' signals.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500') and why (partial basket fills convert arb into unhedged directional position). Also specifies required parameters for each mode.

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