Skip to main content
Glama

Codewars

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details such as the semantic anchor (Jaccard similarity), partition filter, fill check logic, and the fact that results may be null. 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 very long and contains many details that could be organized better (e.g., separate sections for modes, fill check). While front-loaded with purpose, it lacks conciseness and structure. Every sentence adds value, but the length could be reduced.

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 of the tool (multiple modes, output structure, fill check) and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers input parameters, response format, edge cases (placeholder slugs, low similarity), and references the fill risk tool for custom sizing.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both event and topic. The description adds value by explaining that event accepts slugs and URLs, and topic accepts seed questions. It also specifies the behavior for each parameter mode, which 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 states the tool's purpose: 'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_fill_risk by specifying the unique arbitrage detection methodology.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each mode: no args for trending scan, event for specific markets, topic for cross-event scanning. It also explains the fill check and advises against trading if realizable edge ≤ 0. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like polymarket_fill_risk or polymarket_edges.

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

All Codewars 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The 4 Codewars tools (kata, user, user_authored, user_completed) are distinct, but the 31 Pipeworx tools create real overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly'), and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-twins of the same router, and the five polymarket_* tools (edges, arbitrage, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) have heavily overlapping opportunity-discovery purposes. discover_tools and suggest_questions also both serve as 'what can I ask' entry points. Agents will misselect between the three ask_pipeworx variants and across the prediction-market suite.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: bare nouns (kata, user), bare verbs (forget, remember, subscribe), adjective_noun (recent_alerts, recent_changes), verb_noun (validate_claim, bet_research), and noun_verb (user_authored, user_completed) all appear. Even within the small Codewars family the prefix style is inconsistent — kata and user are bare nouns while user_authored and user_completed expect a user_ prefix, and remember/recall/forget use a different verb style than the rest of the server.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools exceeds the 25+ 'too many' threshold for a coherent server. Worse, 31 of the 35 are Pipeworx meta-research tools unrelated to the server's namesake (Codewars), so the count is drastically inflated relative to its apparent purpose — the server presents a full finance/prediction-market/research gateway while contributing only 4 tools to its advertised domain.

Completeness2/5

The actual Codewars surface has significant gaps: kata, user, user_authored, and user_completed are purely read-only, with no solution submission, attempt/training history, leaderboard access, or kata search by difficulty/language. Meanwhile the Pipeworx side is over-complete for a server not named for it, leaving the server's stated identity under-covered with no way to perform any write operation on the Codewars platform.

Resources