Skip to main content
Glama

Bis

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses key behavioral traits: it requires one of market/event, walks the order-book ladder, returns a verdict, and warns that partial basket fills can strand the user unhedged. It also explains the interpretation of size_usd in each mode, giving a clear picture of what the tool does internally.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but every sentence serves a purpose. It is front-loaded with the core function, uses clear uppercase labels for modes, and packs critical details without redundancy or filler. The structure is easy to scan despite its density.

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 complexity (two modes, many return fields, no output schema), the description fully covers what it does, what it returns, how it behaves, and when to use it. It even explains the risk of partial fills and thin legs, making it self-sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Though the schema has 100% description coverage, the description adds crucial semantics: the REQUIRES one-of market/event constraint, side defaults and meanings, and the differentiated size_usd interpretation (max spend on buys, target proceeds on sells, settlement notional in basket). This goes far beyond the schema's basic 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?

The description opens with 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth,' which precisely states the tool's function and resource. It explicitly details two modes (SINGLE-MARKET and BASKET) and returns, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and 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?

The description provides explicit guidance: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also explains the rationale (theoretical overround on thin books is not capturable, partial basket fills convert an arb into unhedged directional risk), making it unambiguous when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

All Bis 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have carefully written distinctions, but several overlap in purpose: ask_pipeworx versus ask_pipeworx_beta are currently functionally identical, and ask_pipeworx, deep_research, validate_claim, and the Polymarket research tools all sit on the same factual-question axis. The long descriptions help an agent choose, but the set still has multiple ambiguous boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are uniformly snake_case and mostly readable, with clear prefix families like pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, and ask_pipeworx*. However, the verb-noun pattern is inconsistent: many tools are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, polymarket_edges) and some are bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), so the naming is not predictable across the full set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold and feels like an organic platform dump rather than a curated server. The broad data-platform scope partly justifies the number, but the presence of near-duplicate entry points and one-off utilities (generate_llms_txt, ai_visibility_check, scan_dependency) makes the set feel bloated rather than cohesive.

Completeness4/5

For a read-heavy data/research platform the surface is unusually complete: discovery, single-lookup, grounded-answer, deep-research, entity resolution, comparison, change-tracking, subscriptions, memory, and feedback are all covered. Missing write/execution capabilities like placing trades or modifying BIS flows are reasonable absences for this kind of server; the main gap is a dedicated historical/trend utility beyond the general router.

Resources