Skip to main content
Glama

Caniuse

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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds significant behavioral detail: it walks the order book ladder, computes slippage, identifies thin legs, and warns that partial basket fills convert an arb into unhedged directional risk. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is dense and lengthy, but every sentence serves a purpose—mode details, parameter semantics, output fields, and explicit usage guidance. It is front-loaded with a clear purpose statement. However, it could be more scannable with bullets or shorter paragraphs for such a complex tool.

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, lack of output schema, and rich annotations, the description fully compensates by enumerating all return values (e.g., top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, capture_ratio), explaining mode-specific behavior, and covering edge cases like thin legs and forced directional risk. It leaves no critical gap.

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?

While schema covers all four parameters, the description substantially enriches them—clarifying that only one of `market` or `event` is required, explaining `side` meanings per mode, and detailing how `size_usd` is interpreted differently (max spend, target proceeds, or settlement notional). This far exceeds schema 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 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth,' a specific verb+resource+scope that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges. It also differentiates single-market vs basket modes, making its purpose unambiguous.

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' and clearly defines when to use single-market vs basket mode. It names alternatives and gives concrete thresholds, leaving no ambiguity.

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

All Caniuse 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

The tool set has significant overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical variants, and deep_research, entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, and validate_claim all retrieve structured data with overlapping capabilities. The five Polymarket-oriented tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) further blur boundaries. Agents will struggle to select the right tool without reading very long descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, validate_claim), and the polymarket_* cluster is consistently prefixed. However, a few tools are bare nouns (feature, support, search) and the remember/forget/recall trio deviates from the dominant pattern, creating minor inconsistency.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a server named 'Caniuse' — only 4 tools actually pertain to browser compatibility (feature, support, search, list_browsers), while 31 are Pipeworx data tools. The server name misrepresents the content, and the sheer number overwhelms rather than scopes the surface.

Completeness3/5

For the caniuse domain, coverage is complete (search, feature, support, list_browsers). The Pipeworx side includes meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions), retrieval, memory, subscriptions, and feedback, but some tools require accounts and there are gaps like no direct way to list all data sources without discover_tools. The overall surface is broad but lacks obvious missing operations for any single coherent domain.

Resources