Skip to main content
Glama

Crystallography

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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description adds extensive behavioral context: it walks the ladder, returns specific fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, verdict, etc.), explains forced_directional_risk, and highlights the dominant loss mode. No contradictions.

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 (~320 words) but well-structured with all-caps headings for modes and listed return fields. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more terse. Given the complexity of the tool, the length is justified.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description comprehensively details return fields for both modes (single-market and basket), explains required conditions (one of market or event), and covers edge cases (thin legs, forced directional risk, max_clean_notional_usd). The description is fully complete for the tool's purpose.

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%, but the description adds rich semantics beyond the schema: explains default side auto-detection for baskets (auto from partition sum), clarifies size_usd as settlement notional for baskets with 'each share pays $1', and details the interpretation of size_usd for single-market (max spend on buys, target proceeds on sells).

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: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It distinguishes between single-market and basket modes and explicitly positions the tool relative to siblings (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges) with 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage...'

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: before acting on arbitrage signals or trades above ~$500. It also warns about thin books and the risk of partial fills converting arb into directional positions, helping the agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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

All Crystallography 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

There are three overlapping ask_pipeworx variants (stable, beta, grounded) plus a dense cluster of six polymarket trading/arbitrage tools, making misselection likely. Several other tools also blur together around research aggregation and entity lookup (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, validate_claim).

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names are lowercase and snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (get_structure, resolve_entity), some are noun phrases (recent_changes, polymarket_edges), and a few are bare verbs (remember, forget, recall). The ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded suffix pattern is readable but not mirrored across the rest of the set.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is above the 25+ threshold for a server whose stated purpose is Crystallography, and only 3 of those tools actually serve that domain. The rest belong to Pipeworx data lookup, Polymarket betting, memory, research, subscriptions, and unrelated utilities, so the count feels excessive and the scope is unclear.

Completeness3/5

As a broad data-research toolset, there is decent lifecycle coverage: lookup, research, grounded verification, entity resolution, comparison, subscriptions, feedback, and memory all exist. However, for a server named Crystallography the domain surface is thin (search/get/get CIF only), and there is no general web-search fallback for topics not in the structured catalog.

Resources