Skip to main content
Glama

Data Mo

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description aligns by stating this is a check (not a mutation). It adds behavioral details beyond annotations: walks the order book ladder, computes VWAP fill price, returns a verdict, and warns about risks. Some behavioral specifics (like exact output fields) are well covered, but the description doesn't add 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 but well-structured: opening sentence states purpose, followed by requirements, mode details, and output fields. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly tighter without losing content. Front-loaded with key verb and 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?

Given the tool's complexity (two modes, detailed output, warnings) and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It lists all return fields for both modes, warns about thin legs and forced directional risk, and explains the 'dominant loss mode'. Combined with comprehensive annotations, nothing critical is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema: explains how size_usd is interpreted differently per mode (max spend vs target proceeds vs settlement notional), clarifies side default logic for basket mode (auto from partition sum), and explains the market vs event parameter roles. This adds significant clarification.

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 performs a 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth', distinguishing between single-market and basket modes. It uses specific verbs like 'walks the ladder' and returns concrete outputs like 'slippage_pp', 'verdict', etc., making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage or 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 instructs to use this tool 'before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. Provides reasons why (theoretical overround not capturable on thin books, partial basket fills create unhedged directional positions), including explicit when-not-to-use context.

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

All Data Mo 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tool pairs have blurred boundaries: 'ask_pipeworx', 'ask_pipeworx_beta', and 'ask_pipeworx_grounded' serve overlapping routing purposes with minor differences in grounding or versioning, which can confuse an agent. Similarly, 'pipeworx_feedback' and the user feedback mechanism inside other tools lack clear tool-level distinction. Most other tools are distinct but the cluster of ask_pipeworx variants lowers overall clarity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names largely follow a consistent verb_noun or prefix_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, scan_dependency). Some names like 'bet_research' and 'datasets' deviate from this pattern but remain readable. No chaotic mixing of conventions like camelCase and snake_case is present, so consistency is high overall.

Tool Count3/5

With 34 tools, the count is on the higher side for a single server, yet the tool set covers a broad domain of data access, analysis, and monitoring (data pipelines, prediction markets, compliance scans). Given the variety of distinct capabilities offered, 34 is borderline but not excessive enough to drop to a 2, as each tool addresses a concrete need.

Completeness5/5

The tool set offers a remarkably complete lifecycle for data operations: discovery (suggest_questions, discover_tools, datasets), entity resolution (resolve_entity, metadata), querying and retrieval (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, query), analysis and comparison (compare_entities, entity_profile, validate_claim), memory (remember, recall, forget), monitoring (subscribe, recent_alerts, polymarket_edge_tracker), and feedback (pipeworx_feedback). Niche tools like bet_research, scan_dependency, and generate_llms_txt further fill domain-specific gaps. No obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.

Resources