Skip to main content
Glama

Data Montreal

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 already indicate read-only, idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds critical behavioral details: it walks the order book ladder, returns a verdict (clean/degraded/cannot_fill), and cautions that theoretical overround on thin books is not capturable, and partial fills create 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 thorough but structured: uses bold labels, lists, and separate sections for single-market and basket. While slightly lengthy, every sentence adds value and is not redundant. It could be slightly more concise without loss of clarity.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by enumerating all return fields for both modes (e.g., top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, max_fillable_usd, verdict for single-market; theoretical_sum, realizable_sum, capture_ratio, profit_usd, per-leg fill detail, thin_legs, max_clean_notional_usd, forced_directional_risk for basket). It also addresses edge cases and failure modes, making it fully actionable.

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% with good descriptions, but the tool description adds substantial extra meaning: explains the difference between single-market and basket parameter behavior, clarifies the auto-default for side in basket mode, and describes size_usd meaning in each mode (spend vs target proceeds for single-market, settlement notional for basket) along with clamp range.

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 it checks realizable vs theoretical edge using order book depth, with two distinct modes (single-market and basket). It distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use: before polymarket_arbitrage signals or polymarket_edges trades above $500. Also warns against using without risk understanding, and explains the danger of partial basket fills converting arb into directional position.

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

All Data Montreal 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx, and the several polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage) have overlapping prediction-market territory. Descriptions help differentiate, but the overlaps could still cause misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., compare_entities, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt). A few tools deviate with noun/adjective prefixes (montreal_datasets, montreal_recent, pipeworx_feedback, recent_alerts) or single verbs (remember, recall, forget), but the overall style is consistent and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the set exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels heavy. While each tool has a distinct role, the sheer number—spanning data access, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and meta-tools—makes the surface harder for agents to navigate compared to a more focused server.

Completeness4/5

For its broad data-gateway purpose, the server covers a wide range: lookups, research, entity resolution, claim validation, memory, subscriptions, and feedback. The Montreal-specific subset (datasets, query, recent) is adequate for the apparent scope, with only minor gaps like no subscription-update tool.

Resources