Skip to main content
Glama

Bundlephobia

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even with readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing the execution behavior: 'walks the ladder,' the exact return fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc.), per-leg filling details, and the warning about forced directional risk. This gives the agent a clear model of what happens on invocation.

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?

Though detailed, the description is tightly organized (SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET, USE THIS) with every sentence delivering necessary information. No repetition or filler; the length is justified by the tool's dual-mode complexity.

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 and lack of an output schema, the description thoroughly covers both modes, return values, parameter interpretations, and high-risk use cases. It even names the dominant failure mode (partial basket fills into unhedged positions), ensuring the agent can act appropriately.

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 descriptions are already rich (100% coverage), but the description adds essential interpretive context: size_usd means 'max spend on buys, target proceeds on sells' in single-market mode and 'settlement notional' in basket mode; side has mode-specific meanings; and it explains the default auto-selection for basket side. This goes beyond the 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?

The description opens with a precise statement: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth,' which clearly defines the tool's function. It differentiates itself from sibling analytical tools by targeting pre-trade risk validation for polymarket arbitrage/edge signals, and details two operational modes.

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 when-to-use 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 (thin books, partial fills) and describes input-mode selection criteria (market vs event).

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

All Bundlephobia 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
Disambiguation2/5

There is substantial overlap among tools in the Pipeworx group: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route natural-language queries to the same 5,578 tools and sources, with only subtle differences in mode (beta vs stable, grounded vs standard, single vs multi-part). Similarly, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, and polymarket_fill_risk are heavily intertwined, making differentiation difficult. Tools like similar, size, history, and scan_dependency from the bundlephobia side are distinct, but the Pipeworx family muddies the set.

Naming Consistency3/5

The bundlephobia tools follow a consistent noun pattern (size, similar, history), and the Pipeworx meta-tools use snake_case verbs (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, compare_entities, validate_claim). However, the naming is inconsistent across the two families—bundlephobia's simple nouns (size, similar, history) clash with the verbose descriptive verbs—and naming like ai_visibility_check, scan_competitor_ai_presence, and generate_llms_txt break from the Pipeworx pattern. The set mixes short names, camelCase-ish compounds, and snake_case, so no single consistent convention holds.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is too many for a server that ostensibly serves two domains (bundle-size analysis and Pipeworx data research). The bundle-size analysis needs only a handful (size, history, similar, recent_searches, scan_dependency), yet there are over 30 tools dominated by a sprawling meta-research layer including multiple ask_pipeworx variants, several polymarket tools, plus meta-cognitive tools (remember, recall, forget, discover_tools) that are not core to either domain. This bloats the surface and makes call routing difficult.

Completeness4/5

Each functional domain is fairly complete: bundlephobia covers size measurement, history, alternatives, search, and dependency vetting; the Pipeworx side covers lookup, research, entity resolution, comparison, verification, subscriptions, and feedback. However, there are gaps—e.g., no tool for directly reading an npm package's README or license beyond scan_dependency's summary, and no explicit tools for some administrative actions like account management or subscription editing beyond create/cancel/list. The completeness is strong for what's advertised but not exhaustive.

Resources