Skip to main content
Glama

Clickup

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 (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive) already indicate safety. The description adds extensive behavioral details: it walks the order book ladder, returns fills, slippage, verdict, forced directional risk, and explains the dominant loss mode (partial basket fills converting arb to unhedged position). 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 thorough but lengthy and dense; it uses formatting (bold, line breaks) to organize content but could benefit from more structured separation. Front-loading of core purpose is effective. Given the tool's complexity, the length is justified, but it still feels slightly verbose.

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 all return fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, verdict, etc.) for both modes. It covers edge cases like thin legs and forced directional risk. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds significant meaning beyond schema: it explains the dual interpretation of size_usd (buy spend vs sell target and basket notional), clarifies side defaults per mode, and provides context for each parameter. The description enriches parameter semantics.

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 performs a 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' with two explicit modes (single-market and basket). It specifically distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by advising to use this tool before acting on their signals or trades above $500.

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 tells when to use this tool ('USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500') and provides context about the modes (single-market vs basket) with clear conditions. It warns about thin books and partial basket fills, giving strong usage guidance.

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

All Clickup 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

Many tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap among query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and among prediction market tools. Detailed descriptions help differentiate, but the large number of tools increases chance of misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is highly inconsistent, mixing snake_case and camelCase conventions. ClickUp tools use 'clickup_' prefix while Pipeworx tools have varied patterns (ask_, scan_, validate_, etc.). No unified convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a server named 'Clickup', with only 6 ClickUp-specific tools. The remaining 29 are from Pipeworx, which is unrelated. The count is inappropriate for the server's stated purpose.

Completeness2/5

The ClickUp integration is incomplete, missing basic CRUD operations like update and delete tasks. The Pipeworx side is comprehensive but not relevant to the server's name. For a ClickUp server, coverage is poor.

Resources