Skip to main content
Glama

Data Sncf

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces that it's a read-only check (no side effects) and adds behavioral details: walks the order book, returns verdicts (clean/degraded/cannot_fill), and alerts about forced directional risk. No contradiction.

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 relatively long but well-structured: starts with purpose, then required params, then mode explanations, return fields, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. Front-loaded effectively.

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, four parameters, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It lists all return fields for both modes, explains pitfalls (thin legs, forced directional risk), and provides practical guidance. Fully carries the burden of explaining behavior.

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%, giving baseline 3. The description goes beyond by explaining default sizes (1000), how size_usd is interpreted differently for single-market vs basket, and the auto-default logic for side in basket mode. Adds meaningful context beyond schema.

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 identifies the tool as a 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth', distinguishing between single-market and basket modes with specific return fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, etc.). It differentiates from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by focusing on fill risk and book depth.

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 states 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. It warns about when not to use it: theoretical overround on thin books is not capturable, and partial basket fills convert arb into unhedged directional position. Provides clear context and alternatives.

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

All Data Sncf 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

Several tools have overlapping purposes, particularly the ask_pipeworx variants (standard, beta, grounded) and the Polymarket analysis tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage). While descriptions help differentiate, an agent may still select the wrong tool for a given task.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names mix verb-initial (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities) and noun-initial (dataset_info, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage) patterns. The snake_case convention is consistent, but the lack of a uniform verb_noun pattern reduces predictability.

Tool Count3/5

With 34 tools, the server is overloaded relative to a clear scope. Many tools are meta-tools (memory, subscription management, feedback) that inflate the count. A more focused set of 15-20 tools would be more coherent.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a wide range of domains: structured data queries, entity profiles, comparisons, prediction market analysis, memory, subscriptions, and SNCF-specific data. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated weather or sports tools), but the universal ask_pipeworx compensates. Overall, users can accomplish most tasks without dead ends.

Resources