Skip to main content
Glama

Coingecko

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.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare safe read-only behavior, but the description adds rich context: walks the ladder, returns specific fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc.), 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 lengthy but well-structured with clear sections (single-market vs basket) and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds necessary detail; minor verbosity but appropriate given the complexity of two modes and risk disclosure.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers both modes, explains all return fields (including thin_legs, forced_directional_risk), and provides usage context and risk warnings—no gaps for the agent.

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%, yet the description adds deep meaning beyond the schema: explains how size_usd is interpreted differently for single-market vs basket, how side defaults work in basket mode ('auto from partition sum'), and clarifies the 'market' vs 'event' exclusivity requirement.

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 starts with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It sharply distinguishes between two modes (single-market vs basket/partition) and differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges.

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 instruction: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also explains why (theoretical overround not capturable, partial fills convert arb into directional position), giving 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 Coingecko 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are near-duplicates or have heavily overlapping responsibilities (ask_pipeworx / ask_pipeworx_beta / ask_pipeworx_grounded, polymarket_arbitrage / polymarket_edges / polymarket_fill_risk, and ai_visibility_check / scan_competitor_ai_presence). The many meta/entry-point tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_trending) also blur the boundary between discovery and execution.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix imperative verb-first patterns (get_coin, search_coins, validate_claim) with noun-phrase labels (bet_research, entity_profile, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edge_tracker) and inconsistent prefixes. Snake_case is consistent, but the naming grammar and verb styles are not.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is well past the comfortable range, and the count feels inflated by duplicate routing modes, overlapping polymarket scanners, and generic memory/meta utilities. A server nominally named Coingecko carries only 4 crypto tools while the overwhelming majority belong to unrelated domains.

Completeness2/5

As a CoinGecko server, the surface is severely incomplete: search/get/market/trending exist but historical prices, OHLC, exchanges, categories, and coin details are missing. As a broader data/prediction-market utility it is more expansive, but the lack of a coherent domain makes coverage impossible to assess as a single product.

Resources