Skip to main content
Glama

Duffel

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds operational behavior: walking the ladder, returning specific fields like top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, and warning about thin books and forced directional risk. No contradictions.

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-organized with clear sections for single-market and basket modes, using bold for key terms. Some sentences are dense; could be slightly more structured with bullet points, but overall efficient given the detail.

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, multiple parameters, no output schema), the description is very complete. It explains both modes, provides defaults, gives context for when to use, and details return fields. Compensates well for lack of output schema.

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: explains size_usd differs for single-market vs. basket, side default behavior for baskets, and usage constraints (requires one of market or event). Goes 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' and distinguishes between single-market and basket modes. It is specific about 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 states 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500' and explains why (theoretical overround not capturable, partial fills cause directional risk). Provides clear context for when to use vs. alternatives.

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

All Duffel 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
Disambiguation3/5

The set is organized into clusters (Pipeworx querying, Polymarket analysis, entity research, subscriptions, memory), but several tools within a cluster have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer questions, and polymarket_edges, bet_research, and polymarket_arbitrage all surface trading opportunities. The very detailed descriptions help an agent choose correctly, but the boundaries are not crisp enough for a 4.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are lowercase snake_case and there are consistent prefixes like polymarket_ and pipeworx_, which aids predictability. However, the verb/noun ordering is inconsistent across the set (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, entity_profile, duffel_flight_search, ai_visibility_check), and some names are noun-heavy while others are verb-first. It is readable but not a uniform convention.

Tool Count2/5

At 32 tools the surface feels heavy for a coherent server; the rubric treats 25+ as too many. Several tools are wrappers or variants of the same underlying capability (ask_pipeworx_beta, polymarket_edges vs bet_research, ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence), so the count overstates real functional breadth.

Completeness3/5

The research/data side is very complete: querying, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, comparison, profiles, monitoring, memory, and feedback are all covered. However, the Duffel flight tool only searches and never books, so if the server is meant to be a flight agent there is a notable dead end; the broader toolkit also lacks direct CRUD for most resources beyond subscriptions.

Resources