Skip to main content
Glama

Cataas

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Polymarket Arbitrage

polymarket_arbitrage
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks. Call with NO args for a trending_scan of the top ~200 markets by weekly volume; pass event for the strongest per-event partition_check, or topic for a themed cross-event scan. event (recommended for a specific market): pass a Polymarket event slug like "fed-decision-may-2026" or "when-will-bitcoin-hit-150k"; walks child markets, checks date-axis / threshold-axis ordering AND computes the partition_check (sum of YES prices across mutually-exclusive legs — should ≈1; deviations >3pp emit a BUY/SELL EVERY LEG signal). topic (for cross-event scanning): pass a seed question like "Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal" or "Fed rate decision"; searches related events across the platform, flattens markets, runs the comparator on the union. Cross-event mode catches "...by May 31" vs "...by Jun 30" patterns that single-event misses. SEMANTIC ANCHOR: cross-event pairs require ≥0.30 Jaccard similarity on question tokens (prevents Powell-Fed-Pause being paired with Powell-DOJ-probe); skipped_low_similarity surfaces the rejected pair count. PARTITION FILTER: drops will-person-X / will-manager-Y / will-someone-else- placeholder slugs; partitions with >20% placeholder fraction return null arb signal. Response: opportunities[] (gap_pp, suggested_trade, reasoning, monotonicity violation context), and in event mode partition_check{sum_yes_prices, gap_from_1, placeholders_filtered, suggested_trade}. FILL CHECK: when the partition signal fires, arbitrage.fill_check prices it against live CLOB depth (theoretical_edge_pp_at_book vs realizable_edge_pp at 1000 shares/leg, thin_legs[]) — realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0 means the overround exists only at last-trade, not in the book; do not trade it. For custom sizing use polymarket_fill_risk.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eventNoSingle-event mode (use this if you know the specific Polymarket event): event slug like "fed-decision-may-2026" or "when-will-bitcoin-hit-150k". Full Polymarket URLs also accepted.
topicNoCross-event mode (use this if you want to scan related events across the platform): a topic or seed question like "Fed rate decision" or "Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal". Tool searches Polymarket for related events and checks monotonicity across them.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds extensive behavioral details: scanning top ~200 markets, semantic anchor (Jaccard similarity ≥0.30), partition filter dropping placeholder slugs, fill check against live CLOB depth, and output structure. No contradictions.

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 detailed but not overly verbose; every section adds value. However, it is somewhat long and could benefit from more structured formatting (e.g., bullet points or section headings) for improved skimmability. Given the complexity, it remains efficient.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the response structure (opportunities array with fields, partition check details, fill check logic). It covers all modes, filters, constraints, and edge cases (e.g., zero similarity pairs, placeholder filtering). The tool's complexity is comprehensively addressed.

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?

Both parameters (event, topic) have 100% schema description coverage. The description significantly enriches each: event is explained with examples and focused mode behavior; topic explains cross-event scanning with seed questions. It also clarifies subtle differences and recommended use cases, going well beyond 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 clearly states the tool finds arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It specifically distinguishes three modes (no args, event, topic) and contrasts with sibling tools like polymarket_fill_risk, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 provides when to use each parameter setting: no args for trending scan, event for specific event, topic for cross-event. It also advises when not to trade (if realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0) and directs to another tool for custom sizing, offering clear decision guidance.

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

All Cataas 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

Several tools intentionally overlap: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx, and ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research plus discover_tools/suggest_questions sit close together. The long descriptions clarify differences, but an agent still has to choose between near-equivalent entry points.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are readable snake_case, but there is no single consistent convention: verb-led names like list_tags and resolve_entity sit alongside noun-led names like random_cat, entity_profile, and polymarket_arbitrage. Domain prefixes like polymarket_ and pipeworx_ help, but the mixed grammar makes the surface less predictable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is far beyond what a cat-image server needs; only 3 tools relate to Cataas, while the rest form a sprawling Pipeworx data, prediction-market, memory, and subscription suite. The count is in the 'too many' range and most tools are outside the server's apparent stated domain.

Completeness3/5

The cat-image core covers random cats, tag-filtered cats, and tag listing, but omits other Cataas-style operations like fetching by cat ID or creating cat images with text/effects. The embedded Pipeworx side is broad, but it does not fill the gaps in the server's named cat API purpose.

Resources