Skip to main content
Glama

disify

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 the annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description discloses detailed behavioral traits: it walks the order-book ladder, returns verdicts (clean|degraded|cannot_fill), interprets size_usd differently per mode, and highlights the risk of partial basket fills transforming an arb into an unhedged directional position. This provides deep context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 dense and information-rich, but quite lengthy. However, every section (purpose, requirements, mode-specific details, output fields, usage warning) earns its place given the tool's complexity. It could be slightly more concise, but the structure is logical and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

For a tool with four parameters, two modes, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers outputs (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, capture_ratio, thin_legs, etc.), default behaviors, constraints, and risk implications in detail. Given the complexity, the description fully satisfies the need for operational guidance.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning: side defaults and mode-specific interpretation, size_usd as 'max spend' vs 'target proceeds' vs 'settlement notional', and the difference between market and event parameters. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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 function as a 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes two modes (single-market and basket) and explicitly contrasts with sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges. This makes the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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' and explains the risks of not using it (partial fills convert arb to unhedged directional position). It also clarifies which mode to use for which scenario, providing clear when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives.

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

All disify 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have nearly identical or heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, and the six Polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread, bet_research) all involve finding/analyzing prediction-market opportunities. deep_research and ask_pipeworx also overlap as general query routers, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence is another confusable pair.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case and are descriptive, but verb placement is inconsistent: some are verb-first (check_domain, compare_entities, resolve_entity), others are verb-last or noun-like (ai_visibility_check, entity_profile, pipeworx_trending, bet_research). There is no chaotic camelCase mix, but the pattern is not predictable enough to guess a tool's behavior from its name.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is far above the typical well-scoped range and the set spans multiple unrelated domains (data lookup, prediction markets, AI visibility, memory, subscriptions, email/domain validation) that have no cohesive purpose under the 'disify' name. Most tools are not related to domain or email checking, making the count feel like a grab bag rather than a focused toolkit.

Completeness2/5

For a server named 'disify', the core domain-validation surface is minimal (only check_domain and validate_email) and misses obvious operations like WHOIS lookup or breach/debounce checks. As a general data toolset it is broad but shallow in each area, with gaps such as entity_profile only supporting US public companies and no update/delete operations for most data resources.

Resources