Skip to main content
Glama

Crontab

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?

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description details exactly what the tool does internally: walks the order-book ladder, computes VWAP, slippage, fills, and a verdict. It also discloses the risk of partial basket fills converting an arb into an unhedged directional position—valuable behavioral context not inferable from the schema or 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, using SINGLE-MARKET and BASKET sections that mirror the tool's modes. Every sentence adds necessary detail for correct use, though it could be tightened by moving return-field lists into an output schema if one existed. Still, it is appropriately dense for the tool's 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?

Given the tool's complexity (two modes, many return fields, potential edge cases) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides all essential context: it lists expected return fields, warns about thin books, names forced directional risk, and explains the threshold for use. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Although the schema already covers 100% of parameters, the description adds critical semantic detail: size_usd means max spend on buys but target proceeds on sells in single-market mode, while in basket mode it is settlement notional (shares per leg). It also explains the auto-default behavior for side in basket mode, which is not in 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by explicitly stating it is for pre-trade validation of fill risk on polymarket books, unlike polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_edges which generate 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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also explains the two modes (single-market vs basket) and when each is appropriate, giving clear context without ambiguity.

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

All Crontab 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer factual questions with subtle differences that are not immediately clear. Additionally, five polymarket tools cover similar ground (arbitrage, edges, fill risk, spread), making it hard to pick the right one without reading the full descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are consistently snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., describe_cron, next_runs, validate_claim). Minor deviations exist (bet_research, entity_profile, pipeworx_trending) but the overall style is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well over the high end for a focused server, and the server name 'Crontab' implies a narrow cron utility while most tools are a broad data-research platform. This mismatch makes the count feel bloated and poorly scoped.

Completeness2/5

For a cron server, the set is severely incomplete: only describe_cron and next_runs exist, with no create/delete/update functionality. For the actual data-research domain, it is rich but lacks clear CRUD coverage for many resources, and the inclusion of unrelated cron/memory tools creates dead ends.

Resources