Skip to main content
Glama

uored

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.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "event"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "topic"
-    ]
-  }
-]
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "event"
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "topic"
+    ]
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / event / description
      Previous value: -"Single-event mode: Polymarket event slug (e.g. \"when-will-bitcoin-hit-150k\") or full URL."New value: +"Single-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."
    • changedInput schema / properties / topic / description
      Previous value: -"Cross-event mode: a topic or seed question. Tool searches Polymarket for related markets across separate events and checks monotonicity across them. E.g. \"Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal\"."New value: +"Cross-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."
  3. Added

TDQS

A5/5.0
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 substantial behavioral context beyond that: the semantic anchor (Jaccard ≥ 0.30), the partition placeholder filter, the >20% placeholder return-null rule, the response shape, and the crucial fill-check caveat that a realizable edge ≤ 0 means the opportunity is not tradable. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is long but highly structured: it front-loads the core purpose, then uses labeled sections (SEMANTIC ANCHOR, PARTITION FILTER, FILL CHECK) and clear mode-by-mode guidance. Every sentence carries operational or decision-relevant detail, and the length is justified given the tool's multiple modes and important fill-check caveat.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains the response shape (opportunities[], partition_check{} fields), the no-argument behavior, both parameter modes, filtering behavior, and the fill-check workflow. It also cross-references polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters already have descriptions, but the tool description adds significant meaning: concrete slug examples, accepted full URLs, the no-argument mode, and exactly how event vs topic change the scan behavior. This exceeds the baseline 3 for full schema coverage because the description enriches both parameters with operational semantics.

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 specific action—'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket'—and names the two methods (monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks). It clearly distinguishes three modes (no-arg trending scan, event, topic) and even points users to a sibling tool (polymarket_fill_risk) for custom sizing, so there is no ambiguity about what this tool does versus alternatives.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and actionable: 'Call with NO args for a trending_scan', 'pass event for the strongest per-event partition_check', 'topic for a themed cross-event scan', and 'For custom sizing use polymarket_fill_risk'. It also states when event is recommended over topic, and distinguishes cross-event mode from single-event mode, giving the agent clear selection criteria.

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

All uored 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several clusters overlap: the three random-activity tools are near-variants of the same action, ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, and discover_tools/suggest_questions both serve capability discovery. The detailed descriptions help agents choose correctly, but the boundaries are not always crisp.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case, but conventions are mixed: verb_noun (resolve_entity, discover_tools), bare verbs (remember, subscribe), adjective_noun (recent_alerts, deep_research), and noun compounds (polymarket_edge_tracker, entity_profile). Clusters are internally consistent, but there is no single pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels bloated. The random-activity trio and the ask_pipeworx stable/beta/grounded trio add redundancy, and several meta-tools could be consolidated. The broad domain scope justifies some of the size, but not all of it.

Completeness3/5

The data query, memory, and Polymarket research surfaces are well covered, but the subscription lifecycle is incomplete: list_subscriptions invites cancellation yet there is no cancel/unsubscribe tool, creating a dead end. Other areas have minor workarounds but no other show-stopping gaps.

Resources