Skip to main content
Glama

Bungie

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: walks the ladder, returns verdicts (clean|degraded|cannot_fill), and explains forced directional risk for baskets. No contradictions, and it enriches understanding 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 long but every sentence adds value, covering purpose, modes, parameters, returns, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded and information-dense. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet lists) but remains concise for the tool's 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?

No output schema, yet the description fully documents return values for both modes (e.g., theoretical_sum, realizable_sum, capture_ratio, thin_legs). It also explains the dominant loss mode (partial basket fills convert arb to directional position), making it complete for an agent to assess risk.

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter descriptions. The tool description adds critical context: mutually exclusive requirement of 'market' or 'event', side defaults (auto for basket), and interpretation of size_usd (max spend vs target proceeds vs settlement notional). This adds value 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 clearly states it performs a 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' with distinct single-market and basket modes. It specifies exact outputs (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, verdict, etc.) and differentiates 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 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. Explains why partial fills convert arb into unhedged directional risk, providing clear when-to-use and rationale.

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

All Bungie 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

C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The tool set mixes Destiny 2 game tools with a large suite of general data querying tools from Pipeworx. Within the data querying subset, tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research have overlapping purposes, making it hard for an agent to distinguish which to use. The Destiny tools are more distinct, but overall, the set has noticeable ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are highly inconsistent, mixing single-word names (character, clan), snake_case (ask_pipeworx, deep_research), and compound names with underscores (polymarket_arbitrage, scan_dependency). There is no uniform verb_noun or other predictable pattern, making it difficult for an agent to infer functionality from the name alone.

Tool Count2/5

With 43 tools, the server is bloated for its stated name 'Bungie'. Many tools are unrelated to Bungie (e.g., Pipeworx data tools, Polymarket tools), suggesting the server aggregates multiple domains without clear scoping. The tool count is too high for a coherent set focused on a single service.

Completeness2/5

For the Bungie game domain, the set is fairly complete (characters, clans, stats). However, the inclusion of numerous unrelated tools (financial, economic, prediction market) fragments completeness. The server lacks a clear domain, leaving gaps in both the Bungie-specific and the general data querying aspects when considered as a unified set.

Resources