Skip to main content
Glama

Datos Ar

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and no destructiveness. The description adds operational details like walking the order book ladder, returning a verdict (clean|degraded|cannot_fill), and warning about 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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured with block-capitalized sections (REQUIRES, SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET). Every sentence adds useful information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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, no output schema, and good annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: modes, parameter details, return fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, verdict, etc.), and warnings about thin books and forced directional risk. It is comprehensive for the tool's complexity.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the dual interpretation of 'side' (single-market vs basket), the size_usd interpretation (settlement notional for baskets), and default values. It provides context beyond the schema, such as the clamp range (10–1,000,000).

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 distinguishes two modes (single-market and basket) and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by specifying when to use this tool (trades above $500 and arb signals).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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 the tool: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It explains why (partial fills lead to unhedged positions). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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

All Datos Ar 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
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools cluster around the same underlying data router (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and the prediction-market family has five overlapping members, so misselection is possible. The descriptions are detailed enough to separate most intents, but ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now and ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence are close cousins.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names consistently use lowercase snake_case, and most follow a clear verb_noun shape like ask_pipeworx, get_series, subscribe, or validate_claim. A few noun-style names (entity_profile, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges) and the bare memory verbs (remember, recall, forget) break the pattern slightly, but the overall convention is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is a heavy surface that exceeds the 25-tool threshold where selection cost becomes a real problem for agents. The count is inflated by auxiliary concerns like memory, subscriptions, feedback, trending, and AI-presence scans that sit alongside the core data-access mission.

Completeness4/5

The core data-research workflows are well covered: discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions), retrieval (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, get_series), entity resolution (resolve_entity), profiles, comparisons, claim validation, and prediction-market analysis all have end-to-end support. Memory and subscription lifecycles are also complete. Minor gaps exist — some sources soft-fail and there is little Argentina-specific tooling beyond the time-series pair — but agents can generally work around them.

Resources