Skip to main content
Glama

Chaos Index

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false. The description adds rich behavioral context: it 'walks the ladder', returns a verdict (clean|degraded|cannot_fill), explains per-leg fill detail for baskets, identifies thin_legs and forced_directional_risk, and warns about the dominant loss mode. 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 well-structured with clear sections for single-market and basket modes, followed by usage guidance. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value; no redundancy. Could be slightly more terse without losing clarity.

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 documents return values for both modes (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, max_fillable_usd, verdict; for baskets: theoretical_sum, realizable_sum, capture_ratio, profit_usd, per-leg fill detail, thin_legs, max_clean_notional_usd, forced_directional_risk). Also provides edge-case warnings about partial fills and forced directional risk.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond schema: side default and auto behavior in basket mode, size_usd interpreted differently for single-market vs basket (spend vs target proceeds vs settlement notional), and market vs event mode triggering different return structures. This enriches parameter understanding.

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 it's a 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' and distinguishes between single-market and basket modes with specific outputs (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc.). It differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by specifying when to use this risk check before acting on those signals.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. It also warns against partial basket fills converting arb into unhedged directional positions, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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