Skip to main content
Glama

Data Usdot

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?

Despite annotations already providing readOnlyHint=true etc., the description adds rich behavioral context: ladder walking, return fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, etc.), basket per-leg detail, thin_legs, forced_directional_risk. No contradiction 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 a single dense paragraph but well-structured with sections (SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET) and bold highlighting. It is informative but slightly verbose; could be trimmed without losing substance.

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 4 parameters with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, the description thoroughly explains all return values (top_of_book, vwap, slippage_pp, verdict, etc.) and covers edge cases like thin books and directional risk. It provides complete context for an 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%, giving baseline 3. However, the description adds critical context: mutual exclusivity of market/event (not in schema's required field), default side logic for basket mode, and interpretation of size_usd for basket vs single-market. This adds significant value beyond the 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 states the tool performs a 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, explains what it returns, and differentiates 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?

Explicitly says 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It explains why skipping it leads to losses (theoretical overround not capturable, partial fills cause unhedged directional positions) and provides mode-specific guidance.

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

All Data Usdot 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 overlapping or near-identical purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are one base query flow with different flavors, while entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes all overlap on company information. The Polymarket family and the discovery/onboarding tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_trending) also create boundary confusion despite good descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming is consistently snake_case and mostly readable, but it mixes verb_noun tools (compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim) with noun-phrase tools (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage, pipeworx_trending, datasets, metadata). The ask_pipeworx variants use a beta/grounded suffix pattern that is not applied uniformly across the other tool families.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and feels like several servers merged into one: US DOT catalog access, a generic Pipeworx data router, prediction-market tools, memory/subscription management, AI-visibility checks, and meta/discovery utilities. Many tools could be consolidated (the three ask_pipeworx variants, the five Polymarket tools, and the discovery trio).

Completeness3/5

The core data lifecycle is broadly covered: catalog search, metadata, querying, natural-language lookup, grounded verification, entity resolution, entity profiles, comparison, research, subscriptions, and memory all have working paths. However, the server is named around US DOT data but only datasets/metadata/query are DOT-specific, and the rest is an unrelated general-purpose data and prediction-market toolkit, leaving the stated domain feeling incomplete.

Resources