Skip to main content
Glama

Data Brussels

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it describes the ladder-walking algorithm, specifies return fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc.), and warns about forced_directional_risk and partial basket fills being dangerous. This complements the readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations 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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET) and front-loads the purpose and requirements. While lengthy, every sentence adds value and the length is justified by the tool's complexity. Slightly verbose but effective.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and safe annotations, the description thoroughly explains both modes' outputs, including edge cases (thin_legs, forced_directional_risk) and partial fill warnings. No missing context for agent decision-making.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds semantic value: explains defaults (size_usd default 1000, side default auto for basket), mutual exclusivity of market/event, and interpretation of size_usd for basket as settlement notional. These details go beyond the schema descriptions, warranting a score above baseline 3.

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 differentiates single-market and basket modes with specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage by explicitly stating when to use this tool before acting on arb 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also explains when not to use (theoretical overround on thin books not capturable, partial basket fills convert arb to unhedged directional position) and states requirements (one of `market` or `event`).

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

All Data Brussels 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, with clear descriptions differentiating similar ones like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded. However, some overlap exists between deep_research and ask_pipeworx, though descriptions provide guidance.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent, mixing snake_case (ai_visibility_check), multi-word phrases (scan_competitor_ai_presence), and simple verbs (query, recall). No uniform pattern like verb_noun convention.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the high side, but the server covers a broad domain (data querying, prediction markets, subscriptions). It feels slightly heavy but still manageable; borderline between reasonable and excessive.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx and prediction market tools are comprehensive, but Brussels Open Data is underrepresented with only three tools (query, dataset_info, search_datasets). Missing update/delete operations for Brussels data, though likely read-only.

Resources