Skip to main content
Glama

Denue

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?

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses detailed behavioral traits: 'walks the ladder', 'thin_legs', 'forced_directional_risk', and the critical warning that 'partial basket fills convert an arb into an unhedged directional position (the dominant loss mode)'. 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 verbose but well-structured: starts with purpose, then REQUIRES, then mode explanations, then usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. The density of information justifies the length.

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 complexity (two modes, no output schema), the description covers inputs, modes, outputs (return fields), risks, and usage context. It helps an agent understand exactly what to expect and when to use the tool. No output schema exists, so the description compensates fully.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions, but the tool description adds significant value: default values (size_usd=1000, side defaults), mode-specific interpretations (size_usd interpreted as settlement notional in basket mode), auto side detection logic, and explanations of how parameters affect return fields. This goes well 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 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' and distinguishes two modes (single-market and basket) with specific verbs and resources. It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by stating 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'.

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: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. It explains when to use (large trades) and the risks of partial fills converting arb to unhedged positions. Sibling context is leveraged for clear when-not-to-use.

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

All Denue 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
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are mostly distinct with detailed descriptions guiding usage, though some overlap exists between similar query tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, which could cause confusion for agents not reading carefully.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case and are readable, but there is no consistent verb-noun pattern. Prefixes vary widely (actions like ask, compare, generate vs. domains like denue, polymarket), making the naming scheme inconsistent.

Tool Count3/5

With 35 tools, the count is high for a server named 'Denue', which suggests a narrower focus. While the breadth may be justified by the platform's capabilities, the number feels slightly heavy and could be streamlined.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of data sources and operations, but it is read-only with no write capabilities for external data. Memory and subscription tools add some action, but overall, it is fairly complete for its stated purpose.

Resources