Skip to main content
Glama

Cms Open Payments

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Bet Research

bet_research
Read-onlyIdempotent

Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call. Pass a market slug ("will-bitcoin-hit-150k-by-june-30-2026"), a polymarket.com URL, or a question text. The tool resolves the market, classifies the bet, fans out to category-specific data packs in parallel, and returns an evidence packet + simple market-vs-model comparison. Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z". CLASSIFIERS: crypto_price, fed_rate, geopolitical, sports, sports_championship, drug_approval, election_candidate, tech_launch, space_launch, corporate, corporate_earnings, corporate_event, public_figure_speech, weather, other. FAN-OUT EXAMPLES: BTC bet → coingecko + fred + gdelt+gnews; Fed bet → fred (DFEDTARU + EFFR + CPIAUCSL) + kalshi_macro (KXFED implied probs) + recent_fed_actions (federal-register rules, last 365d); Hormuz bet → imf_portwatch + airspace + gdelt; Yankees WS → mlb_stats_standings + parent_event partition + news; hottest-year bet → climate_projection_nyc + gistemp_latest (NASA global anomaly, rank since 1880) + news; NVDA-vs-AAPL → finnhub get_quote + edgar shares-outstanding (derived market cap) + edgar filings + news. RESPONSE SHAPES: result.market carries best_bid/best_ask/spread_pp/liquidity/price_change_1h/1d/1w; result.analysis carries model_probability/edge_pp/kelly_fraction_half when a closed-form model fires PLUS a 24h-move warning ("Market moved X.Xpp in 24h, comparable to model edge — your edge may already be priced in") when relevant; result.evidence is keyed by source. RESOLVER CONTRACT: result.market_match_confidence ∈ {high, medium, low, none}, market_match_score (0-1 token-overlap), market_match_alternatives[] (other candidate markets the resolver considered), and suggestions[] (explicit re-query hints when the match is fuzzy) — ALWAYS inspect these before trusting the analysis block, because medium/low matches can still surface other fields. PARENT_EVENT EXTRACTOR: when the bet is one leg of a partition (Yankees WS, Romania election), result.parent_event{matched_candidate, top_legs_by_price[], partition_size, placeholders_filtered} gives you the peer prices in one place — that's the headline for elections/championships. NEWS FIELDS: news entries carry _fallback_attempted / _fallback_failed_reason / retry_after_sec when GDELT 429s and GNews backfill ran or failed. SAFETY: low-confidence resolutions short-circuit with status:"low_confidence_match" and suppress analysis fields so agents can't accidentally size on phantom matches. Closed/dead markets that ARE still indexed by Polymarket (yes_price≈0, no volume, no liquidity) return status:"market_closed_or_inactive" and skip fan-out. In practice resolved markets are usually de-indexed and instead surface via the low_confidence_match path above — both routes are BLOCKING, just different mechanisms. Wide-spread markets (>10pp) carry tradeability:"illiquid_wide_spread" + an explanatory note. RESOLUTION-RULE RISK: market.cancellation_rule parses the void/postponement settlement out of the resolution text — refund_50_50 (shares settle flat 50¢ on void; EV-material for any entry away from 50¢, with ev_impact quantified), resolves_no_on_cancel, resolves_yes_on_cancel, carries_to_reschedule, or mentioned_unclear. null means the description never mentions cancellation. Check this before sizing sports/esports/event-occurrence bets — audited arb-bot ledgers show flat-50¢ void settlements are a recurring pure-rules loss.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthNoquick = 2-3 evidence sources, thorough = full fan-out. Default thorough.
marketYesPolymarket slug ("will-bitcoin-hit-150k-by-june-30-2026"), full URL ("https://polymarket.com/event/..."), or question text ("Will Bitcoin hit $150k by June 30?")
include_rawNoDefault false. When false (recommended), FRED/FDA/GDELT/Federal-Register evidence is summarized to the few fields agents actually use — keeps responses under ~20KB. Pass true to get full upstream payloads (50KB-500KB) when you need to recompute deltas, cite specific observations, or post-process.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / examples
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "market_input": "will fed cut rates in june 2026"
-  },
-  {
-    "market_input": "https://polymarket.com/event/will-bitcoin-hit-150k-by-june-30-2026"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "market": "will-bitcoin-reach-100k-in-july-2026"
+  },
+  {
+    "market": "https://polymarket.com/event/will-bitcoin-hit-150k-by-june-30-2026"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description provides extensive behavioral details beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc.). It explains fan-out logic with concrete examples, response shapes with specific fields, error handling (e.g., low confidence short-circuit, closed market blocking), and resolution-rule risk. 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is thorough but overly verbose, mixing high-level purpose with detailed field explanations and edge cases. While the front-loading is good (purpose first), the length may overwhelm some agents. A more structured breakdown (e.g., sections for input, process, output) could improve conciseness without losing information.

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 classifiers, fan-out patterns, response shapes, edge cases like closed markets or low confidence), the description is remarkably complete. It covers all major aspects beyond the schema and annotations, including resolver contract, parent event extraction, and resolution-rule risk. Without an output schema, the description fully compensates.

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?

All three parameters are described in the schema with good coverage (100%). The description goes further by explaining the `market` parameter with examples, clarifying `depth` options (quick vs. thorough), and adding context on `include_raw` (when to use false vs. true). This adds meaningful value beyond the schema alone.

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 purpose: researching a Polymarket bet by pulling Pipeworx data. It specifies acceptable input formats (slug, URL, question text) and outlines the process (resolve, classify, fan out, return evidence). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges or polymarket_arbitrage, which focus on different aspects.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly recommends using the tool for queries like 'should I bet on X' and 'what does the data say about Y'. It also details various scenarios (low confidence, closed markets, wide spreads) and how the tool handles them. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool, which would strengthen guidelines.

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

All Cms Open Payments 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

Tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are very similar, causing potential confusion. The open_payments_* tools are clearly differentiated, but the mix of generic Pipeworx tools with domain-specific ones creates overlapping purposes.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix conventions: some use snake_case (ask_pipeworx, open_payments_company), while others use less consistent patterns (deep_research, generate_llms_txt). The open_payments_* tools have a consistent prefix, but the overall set lacks a unified naming scheme.

Tool Count2/5

With 41 tools, the server is heavily overloaded for a domain focused on CMS Open Payments. The majority of tools are general-purpose Pipeworx tools unrelated to the server's name, making the count feel excessive and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

The open_payments_* tools cover the CMS Open Payments domain well (search, company, physician, history, etc.). However, the inclusion of many unrelated Pipeworx tools means the server as a whole is not cohesive, and the completeness of the named domain is overshadowed.

Resources