Skip to main content
Glama

Cfpb

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "event"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "topic"
-    ]
-  }
-]
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "event"
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "topic"
+    ]
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / event / description
      Previous value: -"Single-event mode: Polymarket event slug (e.g. \"when-will-bitcoin-hit-150k\") or full URL."New value: +"Single-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."
    • changedInput schema / properties / topic / description
      Previous value: -"Cross-event mode: a topic or seed question. Tool searches Polymarket for related markets across separate events and checks monotonicity across them. E.g. \"Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal\"."New value: +"Cross-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."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description thoroughly exposes the tool's behavior beyond annotations: it details the algorithms (monotonicity, partition check), filtering criteria (Jaccard similarity, placeholder fraction), and the fill check logic. The annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) are consistent with the description, and no contradictions exist.

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 verbose but well-structured with clear sections (SEMANTIC ANCHOR, PARTITION FILTER, FILL CHECK) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds substance, though some detail (e.g., exact Jaccard threshold) could be considered excessive for a tool description.

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 complexity, the description fully covers functionality, invocation modes, algorithm details, filtering, response structure (opportunities[]), and crucial caveats like the fill check. It compensates for the lack of an output schema by describing the response shape, making it complete for agent invocation.

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 have full schema descriptions (100% coverage), and the description adds significant value by explaining their purpose, acceptable values (e.g., 'event slug like "fed-decision-may-2026"'), and how the mode changes behavior. This goes beyond the schema's minimum.

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 that the tool finds arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes between three modes: no-arg trending scan, event-specific scan, and cross-event topic scan, setting it apart from sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_fill_risk.

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 instructs when to use each mode: 'Call with NO args for a trending_scan...', 'event (recommended for a specific market)', and 'topic (for cross-event scanning)'. It also provides guidance on the fill check and recommends polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing, effectively directing the agent to alternatives.

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

All Cfpb 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

There are multiple overlapping tools for querying data (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, bet_research) that could confuse an agent, though descriptions are detailed enough to distinguish most. Tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_edge_tracker are closely related, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is highly inconsistent: some follow verb_noun (cfpb_search_complaints, resolve_entity, subscribe, recall), but many use varied patterns like adjectives (ai_visibility_check), imperative phrases (ask_pipeworx, scan_competitor_ai_presence), or compound/specialized names (polymarket_arbitrage, generate_llms_txt). No consistent prefix or convention is used across the toolset.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools spanning diverse domains (prediction markets, SEC filings, CFPB complaints, AI visibility, npm packages, IPC subscriptions), the server is sprawling and over-scoped. Many tools are specialized niche additions (polymarket_fill_risk, scan_dependency, generate_llms_txt) that expand the count without strong cohesion.

Completeness3/5

The toolset covers core areas well (entity resolution, profile, comparison, recent changes, search, claims verification, subscriptions). However, gaps exist: no update/delete for CFPB complaints (read-only), no direct raw SEC filing retrieval, and some lifecycle operations (e.g., editing subscriptions) are missing.

Resources