Skip to main content
Glama

Biosamples

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
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive. Description adds valuable context: walks ladder, returns detailed fill metrics (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage, verdict), per-leg details, and risk analysis (thin_legs, forced_directional_risk). No contradiction with annotations; adds behavioral specifics beyond what annotations imply.

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?

Long but well-structured with embedded headings (SINGLE-MARKET:, BASKET:). Front-loads purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value given the tool's complexity (two modes, multiple return fields). Could be slightly more concise, but the detail is justified.

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?

No output schema, yet description fully documents all return fields for both modes, including risk warnings (partial fills, directional exposure). Covers parameters, behavior, and consequences adequately. For a complex tool with 4 params and no output schema, this is extremely complete.

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% (all 4 parameters described). Description adds significant meaning: clarifies size_usd interpretation differs by mode (spend vs target proceeds vs settlement notional), explains side default logic for baskets (auto from partition sum), and defines market/event requirements. Goes well beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Description specifies verb ('check') and resource ('realizable-vs-theoretical edge against live CLOB order-book depth'), distinguishes between single-market and basket modes with clear semantics. No ambiguity with sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_edges.

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 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage... signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. Explains when not to use (theoretical overround not capturable, partial fill risk) and provides alternative tool contexts. Also clarifies required parameters ('REQUIRES one of market or event').

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

All Biosamples 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

Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now), and ask_pipeworx_grounded are three variants of the same router, while six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research all target prediction-market edge discovery. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence further overlap. Only a minority of the 33 tools have clearly distinct purposes.

Naming Consistency3/5

snake_case is used throughout, and the polymarket_/pipeworx_ prefixes are internally consistent, but the naming convention mixes verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, search_samples, resolve_entity, validate_claim) with noun-first names (entity_profile, recent_changes, bet_research) and ad-hoc names like discover_tools or generate_llms_txt. Readable, but no single predictable pattern.

Tool Count1/5

33 tools for a server named 'Biosamples' is an extreme scope mismatch: only 2 of 33 tools (get_sample, search_samples) relate to biological samples, with the remaining 31 forming an unrelated kitchen sink of Pipeworx data routing, Polymarket betting, npm dependency checks, AI visibility audits, memory storage, and subscription management. The count is far beyond anything the stated purpose justifies.

Completeness2/5

For the actual Biosamples domain, search + get covers read-only access but no submission, annotation, or batch workflows, and the server's stated purpose is drowned out by unrelated domains that are only partially covered. The surface is simultaneously bloated with 31 irrelevant tools and thin on the one domain the server name promises, making coherent lifecycle coverage impossible to assess.

Resources