Skip to main content
Glama

Data Nola

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Polymarket Arbitrage

polymarket_arbitrage
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks. Call with NO args for a trending_scan of the top ~200 markets by weekly volume; pass event for the strongest per-event partition_check, or topic for a themed cross-event scan. event (recommended for a specific market): pass a Polymarket event slug like "fed-decision-may-2026" or "when-will-bitcoin-hit-150k"; walks child markets, checks date-axis / threshold-axis ordering AND computes the partition_check (sum of YES prices across mutually-exclusive legs — should ≈1; deviations >3pp emit a BUY/SELL EVERY LEG signal). topic (for cross-event scanning): pass a seed question like "Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal" or "Fed rate decision"; searches related events across the platform, flattens markets, runs the comparator on the union. Cross-event mode catches "...by May 31" vs "...by Jun 30" patterns that single-event misses. SEMANTIC ANCHOR: cross-event pairs require ≥0.30 Jaccard similarity on question tokens (prevents Powell-Fed-Pause being paired with Powell-DOJ-probe); skipped_low_similarity surfaces the rejected pair count. PARTITION FILTER: drops will-person-X / will-manager-Y / will-someone-else- placeholder slugs; partitions with >20% placeholder fraction return null arb signal. Response: opportunities[] (gap_pp, suggested_trade, reasoning, monotonicity violation context), and in event mode partition_check{sum_yes_prices, gap_from_1, placeholders_filtered, suggested_trade}. FILL CHECK: when the partition signal fires, arbitrage.fill_check prices it against live CLOB depth (theoretical_edge_pp_at_book vs realizable_edge_pp at 1000 shares/leg, thin_legs[]) — realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0 means the overround exists only at last-trade, not in the book; do not trade it. For custom sizing use polymarket_fill_risk.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eventNoSingle-event mode (use this if you know the specific Polymarket event): event slug like "fed-decision-may-2026" or "when-will-bitcoin-hit-150k". Full Polymarket URLs also accepted.
topicNoCross-event mode (use this if you want to scan related events across the platform): a topic or seed question like "Fed rate decision" or "Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal". Tool searches Polymarket for related events and checks monotonicity across them.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: internal thresholds (3pp deviation, 0.30 Jaccard similarity, 20% placeholder fraction), the fill check logic with realizable_edge_pp, and response structure. No contradictions with annotations.

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 for each mode and internal logic. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is somewhat verbose, including detailed technical thresholds that could be seen as implementation details. Every sentence earns its place, but condensing some internal checks could improve conciseness.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must describe return values. It does so thoroughly: 'opportunities[] (gap_pp, suggested_trade, reasoning, monotonicity violation context)' and for event mode 'partition_check{...}'. It also covers edge cases like skipped_low_similarity and placeholder filters. Given the complexity (2 optional parameters, multiple modes, internal checks), the description is complete and practical.

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 substantial value beyond the schema: it explains the default behavior when no args are passed (trending scan), provides examples of valid slugs and topics, and details what each mode does internally. However, the schema descriptions themselves are already clear, so the addition is incremental but significant.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks.' It clearly distinguishes between the three modes (no args, event, topic) and provides specific examples of when to use each. This fully differentiates it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_fill_risk.

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 guidance on when to use each parameter: no args for trending scan, event for specific market (recommended), topic for cross-event scanning. It includes examples of slugs and seed questions, explains the fill check as a prerequisite for trading, and even references an alternative tool (polymarket_fill_risk) for custom sizing. This is comprehensive and leaves no ambiguity.

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

All Data Nola 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 tool boundaries blur: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve overlapping query/research entry points, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx by the server's own description. entity_profile, recent_changes, and compare_entities also cover overlapping company-investigation territory, forcing agents to parse long descriptions to avoid mis-selection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are uniformly snake_case and mostly follow a predictable verb-object or domain-prefix pattern (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, nola_*, subscribe/unsubscribe). Minor deviations like nola_datasets, polymarket_edges, and ai_visibility_check are noun-first rather than verb-first, but the overall convention is still readable and coherent.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the 15-25 heavy range and includes multiple near-duplicate query modes, four closely related Polymarket analysis tools, and memory/subscription utilities layered on top of the core data-access surface. While the server appears to be a broad data platform, the count is bloated for an agent to navigate efficiently.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is remarkably broad: discovery, single-answer lookup, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, NOLA querying, prediction-market analytics, memory, subscriptions, and feedback are all covered with few obvious dead ends. The main gap is that the NOLA-specific surface is thin relative to the server name, though nola_query plus nola_datasets provides a flexible escape hatch.

Resources