Skip to main content
Glama

uooks

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Although annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and non-destructive, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it walks the order-book ladder, returns a verdict (clean|degraded|cannot_fill), and warns about forced_directional_risk and thin_legs that could strand an arbitrage unhedged. 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?

The description is well-structured into SINGLE-MARKET and BASKET sections and is front-loaded with the core purpose, but it is quite verbose with many return fields and warnings. It is dense and valuable, though not as concise as it could be; still highly organized.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: listing every return field for both modes (e.g., vwap_fill_price, capture_ratio, thin_legs[], max_clean_notional_usd). It also covers size semantics, mode selection, and failure modes, making it complete for a complex tool with two operational modes.

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%, but the description enriches each parameter beyond the schema: it explains the dual meaning of size_usd (max spend vs target proceeds in single-market; settlement notional per leg in basket), the default auto-selection for side in basket mode, and the required exclusivity of market vs event. This is substantial added meaning.

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 a precise verb+resource statement: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It clearly distinguishes single-market and basket modes, and the emphasis on fill risk differentiates 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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also explains the risk of partial basket fills and why the check is necessary, giving clear when-to-use and why-not-to-skip guidance.

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

All uooks 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tool families overlap at the boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to the same 5,724 tools, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently functionally identical to ask_pipeworx. The Polymarket family is large but each member has a fairly distinct role (research vs. edge scan vs. fill risk vs. tracking); the memory trio and book tools are clear.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_book, create, search_books, resolve_entity, list_subscriptions), but there are notable exceptions: recall/remember/forget are bare verbs without a domain prefix, ask_pipeworx begins with a verb but doesn't follow the noun-object structure, and ai_visibility_check/generate_llms_txt break the pattern. It's readable and mostly predictable, but not uniform.

Tool Count3/5

35 tools is heavy and exceeds the typical well-scoped range, but the server is a meta-platform exposing a universal data router plus prediction-market analysis, book lookup, memory, subscriptions, and several composite research tools. Each tool appears to earn its place, though the set feels sprawling and would benefit from consolidation of the ask_pipeworx variants.

Completeness4/5

Coverage is thorough within the apparent domains: data lookup has multiple tiers (casual, grounded, deep research, claim validation), the Polymarket workflow is complete from research to edge discovery to fill-risk verification, memory has save/retrieve/delete, and subscriptions have create/list/cancel/pull. Minor gaps exist (e.g., book author search by name only via Open Library key, no direct tool for invoking a specific raw data pack), but nothing that would strand an agent.

Resources