Skip to main content
Glama

Cta

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?

Describes read-only behavior (walking ladder), return fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, etc.), and risks (thin legs, forced directional risk). Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive; description adds substantial context without contradiction.

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?

Description is relatively long but well-structured with sections for single-market, basket, and usage advice. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose. Front-loaded with main purpose.

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?

Complex tool with two modes and many return fields; description covers everything needed including return values for both modes, parameter behavior, and risks. No output schema but description compensates fully.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds significant value: explains default side for basket (auto), size_usd meaning per mode (max spend vs target proceeds vs settlement notional), and clamp range. Far exceeds minimal schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states tool checks 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge against live CLOB order-book depth', with specific verb and resource. Clearly distinguishes single-market and basket modes, and differentiates from siblings 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?

Explicitly advises 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. Explains why: theoretical overround on thin books is not capturable, and partial fills convert arb to unhedged directional position.

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

All Cta 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, and validate_claim all accept natural-language factual questions, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly described as currently identical to ask_pipeworx. The entity tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, resolve_entity) and the many Polymarket tools also blur together, making misselection likely.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are snake_case and readable, with recognizable prefixes like cta_, polymarket_, and ask_pipeworx_. However, conventions are mixed: bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe), noun-style phrases (entity_profile, bet_research), and variants like ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence prevent a single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is above the comfortable range, and the count is especially mismatched for a server named 'Cta': only 4 tools actually concern Chicago transit, while the other 31 form a general-purpose research, prediction-market, and memory suite. The set feels like multiple unrelated servers merged together.

Completeness2/5

As a CTA server, the surface is notably incomplete: it has bus/train positions and predictions but lacks alerts, service disruptions, route listings, and station/stop metadata. The broader Pipeworx tools are extensive but appear bolted on, so the overall set has no coherent domain against which completeness can be judged.

Resources