Skip to main content
Glama

Dryad

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context such as the order book depth check, the risk of partial fills, and the forced_directional_risk naming. 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 long but well-structured with clear sections for SINGLE-MARKET and BASKET, and each sentence adds value (e.g., output fields, default values, risk warnings). Could be slightly more concise but info density is high.

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 tool complexity (two modes, many output fields) and absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains all return values (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc.) and provides risk context (thin_legs, forced_directional_risk). It is complete for effective selection and invocation.

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 schema already documents parameters. The description adds further context by explaining the interplay between market and event parameters, default side selection for baskets, and how size_usd is interpreted differently in each mode, enhancing the schema baseline.

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 defines the tool as a 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' and distinguishes between single-market and basket modes with specific output fields. It differentiates from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by focusing on fill risk and order 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?

Explicitly states 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500' and warns that partial basket fills convert arb into unhedged directional positions, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All Dryad 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

There is notable overlap between tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, as well as between polymarket_edges and bet_research. While descriptions differentiate them, an agent may struggle to pick the right one without deep understanding of nuances.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names use mixed conventions: snake_case (ai_visibility_check), verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, bet_research), and single-word verbs (forget, recall). Some names are very long (polymarket_fill_risk) while others are terse, reducing predictability.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is high but can be justified by the broad domain coverage (data retrieval, entity resolution, comparisons, memory, subscriptions). However, several tools serve similar purposes, suggesting potential consolidation.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of data sources and tasks (SEC, FDA, real estate, prediction markets, etc.) with CRUD-like operations on memory and subscriptions. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct stock trading or social media monitoring, but overall coverage is strong.

Resources