Skip to main content
Glama

Data Nashville

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable context: it walks the order book ladder, returns verdicts (clean/degraded/cannot_fill), and warns about forced directional risk in basket mode. However, it doesn't mention any rate limits or cost implications.

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 dense and uses uppercase headings for clarity, but it's a single continuous paragraph. It efficiently conveys a lot of information without wasted words, though breaking into bullet points or shorter sentences would improve readability. Still, it earns its space.

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 fully documents return fields for both modes (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, theoretical_sum, per-leg details, thin_legs, forced_directional_risk, etc.). It also covers required conditions, defaults, and risks (partial fills converting arb to directional position). Very comprehensive for a complex tool with 4 parameters.

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% but the description adds significant meaning: explains mutual exclusivity of `market` and `event`, describes default side logic in basket mode, clarifies interpretation of `size_usd` for single-market vs basket (spend vs target proceeds vs settlement notional), and mentions value clamping. This goes well beyond the 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?

The description clearly states it performs a 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth'. It also distinguishes between single-market and basket modes and explicitly mentions it should be used before polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_edges tools, setting it apart from sibling tools.

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: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. It also explains why (theoretical overround not capturable, partial fills lead to directional risk), providing clear decision context.

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

All Data Nashville 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical in current behavior, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, validate_claim, and deep_research all overlap with the same underlying routing. The six Polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread, bet_research) share domain and response fields, making misselection likely despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Snake_case is used throughout and prefix families (ask_pipeworx_*, nashville_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) are consistent within themselves. However, the overall set mixes verb-first names (ask, compare, remember, subscribe) with noun/adjective-first names (entity_profile, recent_alerts, recent_changes, bet_research), so no single predictable pattern governs all tools.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the server exceeds a coherent surface, especially for a server named 'Data Nashville' where only 3 of 34 tools actually serve Nashville data. The count is inflated by several largely unrelated feature families (AI visibility, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions), making the set feel like an aggregation of multiple products rather than one focused server.

Completeness3/5

Individual families are fairly complete: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/unsubscribe/list/recent_alerts, and Nashville has discovery/query/recent access. But the overall domain is unclear, and the Nashville-specific surface is thin (no search across datasets, no non-ArcGIS sources), leaving notable gaps relative to the server name.

Resources