Skip to main content
Glama

Bpstat Pt

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?

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) indicate safety and non-destructive nature, which the description supports. Description adds details on ladder-walking, verdicts (clean/degraded/cannot_fill), and forced directional risk, going beyond 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 with sections for single-market and basket modes, but it is somewhat verbose (~200 words). Every sentence is informative, but some output details could be streamlined without losing clarity.

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, multiple output fields, integration with other tools), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage conditions, parameter behavior, return values, risks, and when to avoid. No output schema, but description compensates fully.

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 description adds significant meaning: explains mode-dependent interpretation of parameters (e.g., size_usd as max spend vs target proceeds vs settlement notional), default side logic, and output fields. Adds value beyond schema.

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 clearly defines the tool as a realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live order-book depth for Polymarket. It specifies two distinct modes (single-market and basket) and lists the outputs, 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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' Provides rationale about uncapturable overround and partial-fill risk, offering clear guidance on alternatives.

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

All Bpstat Pt 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
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tool clusters are nearly indistinguishable: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly documented as currently identical, scan_competitor_ai_presence is a thin wrapper over ai_visibility_check, and the five polymarket_* tools (edges, edge_tracker, arbitrage, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) share heavily overlapping edge-detection/fill-analysis concerns. entity_profile and recent_changes also both fan out to the same SEC/news/patents sources, so an agent must read full descriptions to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

The dominant pattern is imperative verb_first (list_datasets, get_dataset, resolve_entity, validate_claim, scan_dependency, subscribe), but there are notable deviations: noun-phrase names like entity_profile, recent_alerts, recent_changes, bet_research, and deep_research; the ask_pipeworx brand family sits awkwardly beside get_/search_ verbs; and the polymarket_* prefix family forms yet another convention. Names are readable and mostly self-explanatory, but no single consistent scheme is followed.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, this exceeds the 'too many (25+)' threshold, and the bloat is compounded by the server's nominal identity: despite being named 'Bpstat Pt' (Banco de Portugal statistics), only about 5 tools (list_domains, list_datasets, get_dataset, get_series_metadata) actually serve that domain. The other 30 tools span unrelated subsystems — Polymarket betting, npm dependency scanning, AI visibility audits, generic memory, and subscriptions — suggesting several products bundled into one server.

Completeness3/5

For the broader data-gateway interpretation, the lifecycle is well covered: discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions), query (ask_pipeworx), grounded verification (ask_pipeworx_grounded, validate_claim), deep research (deep_research), profiles/comparisons (entity_profile, compare_entities), monitoring (recent_changes, subscribe/recent_alerts), and memory (remember/recall/forget). However, for the nominal Bpstat statistical domain there is no keyword search over series or datasets — navigation requires knowing domain/dataset ids in advance — and the extreme scatter across unrelated domains leaves each subsystem only partially developed.

Resources