Skip to main content
Glama

Conspiracy Theory

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description expands on behavior: it walks the order book ladder, returns verdicts (clean/degraded/cannot_fill), and warns about forced directional risk. 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 long but well-structured with sections (REQUIRES, SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET) and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value, though some detailed return field explanations could be slightly shortened. Overall appropriate for complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains return values for both modes (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc.). It covers edge cases like thin_legs and forced_directional_risk. Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description is complete.

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 description coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: for 'side' it explains auto default behavior in basket mode; for 'size_usd' it clarifies interpretation as settlement notional in basket mode and adds clamp range (10–1,000,000) not in schema. Each parameter is well-explained.

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 is a 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It specifies two modes (single-market and basket) and explains what each does, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'polymarket_arbitrage' and 'polymarket_edges' by focusing on risk assessment before acting on 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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also explains why, citing that theoretical overround on thin books is not capturable and partial basket fills convert arb into directional positions.

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

All Conspiracy Theory 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 have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve route/discover/research data needs, with ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly noted as currently identical to ask_pipeworx. Polymarket tools also blur together (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk), and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are near-duplicates. An agent would frequently need to read long descriptions just to pick between near-equivalent entry points.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set is mostly snake_case and generally readable, with clear verbs like list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt, and validate_claim. However, conventions are mixed: brand-prefixed nouns appear (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending), one tool reverses the pattern (conspiracy_theory_generate vs generate_llms_txt), and the ask_pipeworx family follows its own scheme. The inconsistency is noticeable but does not make the names unreadable.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is heavy, and the apparent scope is a scattered mix of general data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, npm dependency checks, and conspiracy-theory generation. Many tools are meta-routers or aggregators that could be consolidated (e.g., the ask_pipeworx family, the polymarket family, the entity-research tools). The count feels like a growing internal toolkit rather than a deliberately scoped server.

Completeness2/5

The tools cover some complete sub-domains — memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/unsubscribe/list/recent_alerts, and data lookup has multiple verification and research paths. But the server's nominal 'Conspiracy Theory' purpose is essentially one generation tool with no save, share, history, or validation workflow, while the bulk of the surface is unrelated general-purpose data tooling. The overall offering is broad but not coherently complete for any clear stated purpose.

Resources