Skip to main content
Glama

Edamam

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Polymarket Arbitrage

polymarket_arbitrage
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks. Call with NO args for a trending_scan of the top ~200 markets by weekly volume; pass event for the strongest per-event partition_check, or topic for a themed cross-event scan. event (recommended for a specific market): pass a Polymarket event slug like "fed-decision-may-2026" or "when-will-bitcoin-hit-150k"; walks child markets, checks date-axis / threshold-axis ordering AND computes the partition_check (sum of YES prices across mutually-exclusive legs — should ≈1; deviations >3pp emit a BUY/SELL EVERY LEG signal). topic (for cross-event scanning): pass a seed question like "Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal" or "Fed rate decision"; searches related events across the platform, flattens markets, runs the comparator on the union. Cross-event mode catches "...by May 31" vs "...by Jun 30" patterns that single-event misses. SEMANTIC ANCHOR: cross-event pairs require ≥0.30 Jaccard similarity on question tokens (prevents Powell-Fed-Pause being paired with Powell-DOJ-probe); skipped_low_similarity surfaces the rejected pair count. PARTITION FILTER: drops will-person-X / will-manager-Y / will-someone-else- placeholder slugs; partitions with >20% placeholder fraction return null arb signal. Response: opportunities[] (gap_pp, suggested_trade, reasoning, monotonicity violation context), and in event mode partition_check{sum_yes_prices, gap_from_1, placeholders_filtered, suggested_trade}. FILL CHECK: when the partition signal fires, arbitrage.fill_check prices it against live CLOB depth (theoretical_edge_pp_at_book vs realizable_edge_pp at 1000 shares/leg, thin_legs[]) — realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0 means the overround exists only at last-trade, not in the book; do not trade it. For custom sizing use polymarket_fill_risk.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eventNoSingle-event mode (use this if you know the specific Polymarket event): event slug like "fed-decision-may-2026" or "when-will-bitcoin-hit-150k". Full Polymarket URLs also accepted.
topicNoCross-event mode (use this if you want to scan related events across the platform): a topic or seed question like "Fed rate decision" or "Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal". Tool searches Polymarket for related events and checks monotonicity across them.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds extensive behavioral details: semantic anchor (Jaccard similarity), partition filter for placeholders, fill check against CLOB depth, and explicit warning against trading when realizable edge is ≤0. These traits go well beyond 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, using section breaks and bolded terms. It front-loads the purpose and progressively details each mode. While verbose, the density of information (modes, internal logic, caveats) justifies the length, though minor trimming could improve conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return structure and behavior across all modes. It covers edge cases (placeholder filtering, fill validation) and provides actionable guidance, leaving no gaps for an AI agent to interpret the tool's actions and results.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, both parameters are already described in the input schema. However, the description enriches semantics by explaining usage (event slug vs. URL, topic as seed question) and how each mode operates, adding significant value 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 'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks,' specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes three modes (no args, event, topic) and differentiates from sibling Polmarke tools by its unique arbitrage focus.

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 directs when to use each mode: no args for trending scan, event for specific market, topic for cross-event scanning. It explains the benefits of each and even redirects to a sibling tool (polymarket_fill_risk) for custom sizing, providing clear guidance on when not to use this tool alone.

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

All Edamam 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

The tool set includes multiple overlapping tools (ask_pipeworx variants, many polymarket tools) that serve similar purposes, and there is a sharp domain split between food tools and Pipeworx data tools, making it hard for an agent to choose correctly.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent, mixing verb_noun (search_food), noun_verb (nutrition_analysis), prefixed (pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage), and no pattern. Some use underscores, some use whole words.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is on the high side, and the scope is extremely broad (food, data queries, prediction markets, subscriptions), which could overwhelm an agent, but the number alone is not extreme.

Completeness2/5

As a food API server, it is missing key features like recipe details, ingredient substitution, or meal planning, while including many extraneous tools. The data analytics tools are extensive but not aligned with the server's stated purpose.

Resources