Skip to main content
Glama

Connecticut Open Data

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?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, consistent with the described check. The description adds behavioral details such as walking the order book ladder, returning verdicts (clean|degraded|cannot_fill), and warning about partial basket fills causing unhedged directional risk.

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 relatively long due to the tool's complexity, but it is well-structured with labeled sections (SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds necessary context, though minor redundancy could be trimmed.

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 lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly enumerates all return fields for both modes, including edge cases like thin_legs, forced_directional_risk, and max_clean_notional_usd. It also provides practical usage warnings and integrates with sibling tool workflows.

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?

Input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds significant semantic value by explaining side defaults and mode-specific behavior, size_usd interpretation (max spend vs. target proceeds, settlement notional for basket), and mutual exclusivity of market and event.

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 references sibling tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges) for differentiation.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also explains the requirement for one of market or event parameters and provides clear mode-specific guidance.

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

All Connecticut Open Data 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Multiple tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) have overlapping research purposes. Additionally, many Polymarket and Pipeworx-specific tools are unrelated to the Connecticut Open Data server name, causing confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is highly inconsistent: some use snake_case (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity), others use longer descriptive phrases (polymarket_fill_risk, scan_competitor_ai_presence), with no clear pattern.

Tool Count1/5

The server claims to be about Connecticut Open Data but includes 34 tools, only 3 of which (datasets, metadata, query) are relevant. The vast majority are unrelated Pipeworx/Prediction Market tools, making the size inappropriate.

Completeness1/5

For Connecticut Open Data coverage, only basic dataset search, metadata, and query tools exist. Missing common operations like data upload, schema modification, or API key management for the open data portal.

Resources