Skip to main content
Glama

Chaos Index

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) already indicate safe, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it performs semantic similarity checks (Jaccard threshold), partition filtering, and a fill check against live CLOB depth. No contradictions 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 lengthy but well-structured: it opens with a concise summary, then details each mode with specific examples, and concludes with response structure and fill check. While every sentence is informative, some redundancy could be trimmed (e.g., 'SEMANTIC ANCHOR' and 'PARTITION FILTER' are detailed but essential). Slightly below perfect conciseness.

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 (multiple modes, internal checks, fill risk), the description covers all necessary aspects: parameter usage, output format, edge cases (placeholder slugs, similarity thresholds), and cross-references a sibling tool for custom sizing. No output schema is needed as the description explains the response structure. Highly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already provides basic meaning. The description adds extra semantics: event accepts slugs or full URLs, topic uses seed questions, and it explains the underlying logic (e.g., cross-event mode catches date patterns). This goes 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 identifies the tool as 'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks' and distinguishes three modes (no args, event, topic), each with specific behavior. This differentiates it 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 states when to use each mode: no args for trending scan, event for a specific market, topic for cross-event scanning. It also explains the partition filter and fill check, providing guidance on when not to trade. This offers clear decision criteria for the agent.

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

All Chaos Index 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 set contains multiple near-duplicate entry points: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical right now), and ask_pipeworx_grounded overlap heavily, while deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all claim to be the 'call this first' tool. Also, ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence and the five polymarket_* tools create boundaries an agent could easily mischoose.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern (compare_entities, validate_claim, unsubscribe, search_within). Minor deviations exist — chaos_index_calculate puts the verb last, entity_profile is noun-only, and the pipeworx_ prefix is applied inconsistently (pipeworx_trending vs ask_pipeworx) — but the overall style is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is too many for a coherent single-purpose server; the set spans data routing, prediction markets, subscriptions, memory, AI visibility, npm scanning, and llms.txt generation. It reads as a bundled suite of unrelated utilities rather than a focused tool surface.

Completeness3/5

Subdomains are individually fairly complete: subscription CRUD, memory CRUD, and the prediction-market workflow (research, edges, arbitrage, fill risk, tracking) are all covered. However, the overall domain is incoherent, and gaps exist such as no update-subscription operation and no way to modify an existing memory beyond overwriting via remember.

Resources