Skip to main content
Glama

Eia

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the ladder-walking process, return values (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, verdict), and the concept of forced directional risk for baskets. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a check operation).

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 (REQUIRES, SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET, USE THIS) and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence is informative, with no wasted words. Despite length, it earns its place for a complex tool.

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, many return fields, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It explains both modes, output fields, usage context, and risks. It fully equips an agent to decide when and how to use the tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the interaction between market/event parameters and modes, the default behavior for side in basket mode (auto from partition sum), and the interpretation of size_usd for baskets (settlement notional). This enriches param understanding.

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 purpose as a realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth, with two distinct modes (single-market and basket) and detailed output fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by specifying when to use it.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also explains the risks of thin books and partial fills, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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

All Eia 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 occupy nearly identical roles: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are described as currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research overlap with the router, and eia_series overlaps with the specialized eia_electricity/eia_ethanol/eia_natural_gas/eia_petroleum tools. The Polymarket opportunity scanners and the two AI-visibility checkers also blur together, making confident tool selection difficult despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a snake_case verb-first pattern (remember, recall, forget, resolve_entity, validate_claim), but there are notable deviations: eia_electricity and eia_ethanol are noun-first category names, recent_alerts and recent_changes are adjective-noun, and pipeworx_trending and polymarket_edges are not verb-driven. The eia_ and polymarket_ prefixes add some predictability, so the naming is readable but inconsistent.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools, this is well past the heavy threshold and feels like a kitchen-sink aggregation of several separate products rather than one focused server. Many tools could be consolidated: the five eia_* lookups, the multiple ask_pipeworx variants, and the several Polymarket scanners all serve close purposes. A 36-tool surface is too much for an agent to navigate efficiently.

Completeness4/5

Within the major subdomains the set is quite complete: entity research has profile/compare/changes/resolve, memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/list/unsubscribe/recent_alerts, and Polymarket analysis has edge discovery, fill-risk, venue-spread, and persistence tracking. Minor gaps exist—no subscription update flow, no dedicated EIA coal/nuclear/renewables series beyond the generic eia_series fallback—but agents can work around them.

Resources