Skip to main content
Glama

Data Providence

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?

While annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds rich behavioral context: it walks the order book ladder, returns specific fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc.), and warns about forced_directional_risk. This goes well beyond the annotations, giving the agent a thorough understanding of the tool's behavior.

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, with clear sections for single-market and basket modes, and uses capitalization for emphasis. Every sentence adds value given the tool's complexity, though it could be slightly more concise without losing detail.

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 comprehensively explains return values for both modes, including fields like verdict, capture_ratio, profit_usd, thin_legs, and forced_directional_risk. It also covers edge cases and provides enough context for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value: it explains that size_usd in basket mode is 'settlement notional S (shares per leg; each share pays $1),' and that side auto-defaults based on partition sum for baskets. This contextualizes parameters beyond their schema definitions, especially for the basket mode.

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 specifies two modes (single-market and basket), making it easy to understand the tool's scope and distinguish it from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and 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?

The description explicitly says 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It explains the rationale (theoretical overround is not capturable, partial basket fills cause unhedged directional positions), providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All Data Providence 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

Most tools have distinct purposes, but several clusters overlap: ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta are currently functionally identical, polymarket_arbitrage / polymarket_edges / polymarket_kalshi_spread all hunt mispricings via different mechanisms, ai_visibility_check is wrapped by scan_competitor_ai_presence, and discover_tools vs suggest_questions both serve tool discovery. The rich descriptions mitigate but do not eliminate misselection risk.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are all snake_case and follow recognizable conventions: verb_noun for actions (compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim), domain-prefixed families (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, recent_*, ask_pipeworx_*), and a few bare verbs (remember, recall, query). Minor deviations like bet_research (noun_verb) and noun-only names (datasets, metadata) break the pattern, but the overall scheme is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' and bundles several distinct domains — general data querying, prediction markets, AI visibility, memory, subscriptions, open data, and npm auditing — into one server. The breadth is defensible for a data platform, but the agent-facing surface is sprawling and would benefit from splitting into focused servers.

Completeness4/5

The core data workflow is well covered: discover (discover_tools, suggest_questions), resolve (resolve_entity), query (ask_pipeworx), ground (ask_pipeworx_grounded, validate_claim), research (deep_research), compare (compare_entities), profile (entity_profile), and changes (recent_changes). Prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions each have full lifecycles. The main gap is no tool for fetching returned pipeworx:// citation URIs directly, plus a few soft-failing sources.

Resources