Skip to main content
Glama

Cactus

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?

Annotations already mark the tool readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it 'walks the ladder', returns specific fields like top_of_book and forced_directional_risk, and warns about partial basket fills creating unhedged positions. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is long but densely packed and well-structured, using clear sections (SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET) and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds operational detail, and the length is justified by 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?

The description covers all key aspects: inputs, modes, return values, failure modes, risk warnings, and usage context. Even without an output schema, it enumerates the important result fields (tops_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc.) and explains the dominant loss mode, making it complete for realistic decision-making.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds deep parameter semantics: it distinguishes single-market vs basket interpretation of `market`/`event`, explains `side` defaults and overround/underround logic, and defines `size_usd` as settlement notional for baskets. This goes well beyond the schema's basic property descriptions.

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 crisp, specific definition: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges and explaining its role as a pre-trade validation step.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also explains why (thin books, partial-fill risk), giving clear context and exclusions.

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

All Cactus 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have clearly differentiated roles, but several pairs blur boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently functionally identical, and identify vs resolve both wrap the same NCI CACTUS service. The detailed descriptions rescue most selections, but an agent could easily mispick between the research and chemical lookup options.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are mostly snake_case and readable, but conventions are mixed: some are verb-first (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim, search_within) while many are noun-first or domain-prefixed (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, recent_changes, pipeworx_trending). There is no single predictable pattern for a new tool's name, though subfamilies (polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*) are internally consistent.

Tool Count3/5

At 33 tools, this is well above the typical well-scoped range and carries real selection overhead. The unusually broad purpose—a data router plus prediction-market analysis, memory, subscriptions, and several standalone utilities—partially justifies the count, but it still feels heavy and could be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

For its varied subdomains, coverage is strong: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/unsubscribe/list/recent_alerts, and prediction markets span research, edge scanning, arbitrage, fill-risk, and edge telemetry. Minor gaps exist—such as no direct tool to fetch a specific citation URI by identifier, and the redundant stable/beta router pair—but there are no obvious dead ends.

Resources