Skip to main content
Glama

Ecos Kr

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 readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context: it walks the order book ladder, calculates slippage, returns verdicts, and identifies thin legs and forced directional risk. This goes beyond annotations, though more detail on idempotency or side effects could improve transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections for single-market and basket modes, uses bold for key terms, and every sentence conveys essential information with no redundancy. It is dense but not verbose, earning its 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully enumerates return fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc.), explains constraints (requires one of market or event), and covers risks (thin_legs, forced_directional_risk). It is complete for understanding the tool's behavior and results.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds further meaning: explains the auto side default for basket mode, interprets size_usd for basket as 'settlement notional', and notes clamping range (10–1,000,000). This adds value beyond the schema's basic 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 explicitly states the tool performs a 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth', distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, and lists return fields. It also directs usage before specific sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges, ensuring clear differentiation.

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 concrete guidance: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. It explains why (theoretical overround not capturable, partial basket fills cause directional risk) and details when to choose single-market vs basket mode via required parameters.

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

All Ecos Kr 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 tool families overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are functionally identical today, and the polymarket_edges/arbitrage/fill_risk/kalshi_spread family plus entity_profile/recent_changes/compare_entities cover adjacent jobs. The descriptions are detailed enough to separate them with careful reading, but an agent could easily select the wrong one without deep inspection.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set has recognizable prefixes like ecos_, ask_pipeworx, and polymarket_, but it also mixes verb_noun names (validate_claim, discover_tools), bare verbs (remember, forget, recall), reversed/gerund forms (bet_research, pipeworx_trending), and special tokens (generate_llms_txt). The naming is readable on a per-family basis but not predictable across the full surface.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is above the comfortable range for a coherent tool set, and several entries are near-duplicates or wrappers: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, and scan_competitor_ai_presence wraps ai_visibility_check. The prediction-market and company-research families could be consolidated without losing capability.

Completeness4/5

For the server's broad scope, lifecycle coverage is strong: ECOS has search/items/get/indicators, subscriptions have create/list/read/cancel, memory has save/read/delete, and the data-research surface covers lookup, grounded verification, comparison, profiles, changes, and discovery. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool to fetch a pipeworx:// record by URI or execute a single catalog tool directly, but these are workable.

Resources