Skip to main content
Glama

Emsc

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, no destructive hint. Description adds extensive behavioral context: read-only check of order book, detailed output fields for both modes, and critical warnings about partial basket fills converting arb to unhedged directional positions. 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?

Well-structured with front-loaded summary, then requirements, mode details, output fields, and usage guidance. Slightly verbose but every sentence earns its place given the complexity of the tool. Could be compressed slightly but remains clear.

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?

No output schema, so description fully compensates by listing all returned fields for both modes (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage, capture_ratio, profit_usd, per-leg detail, thin_legs, etc.). Also explains when to use and risks, making it complete for a 4-parameter tool with rich behavior.

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. Description adds meaning beyond schema: explains the difference between single-market and basket modes for the side parameter, defines size_usd contextually (max spend vs target proceeds, settlement notional), and clarifies default behaviors.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It distinguishes between single-market and basket modes and is distinct from sibling tools 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 when to use: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' Provides exclusion criteria (thin books, partial fills) and warns about 'the dominant loss mode in real arb-bot P&L.'

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

All Emsc 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Multiple tools overlap: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, and the five prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker) cover adjacent tasks that require careful reading. However, descriptions are unusually explicit about when to prefer each, and non-overlapping domains (memory, subscriptions, earthquakes, npm) are clearly separated.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names are snake_case with a mostly verb-first pattern (ask_, compare_, discover_, generate_, list_, scan_, search_, validate_), making the surface predictable. Minor deviations like deep_research, entity_profile, and single-word verbs (remember, recall, forget) break the pattern slightly, but each family is internally consistent.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many,' and several could be consolidated — ask_pipeworx_beta is redundant today, and the prediction-market suite could fold into 2-3 tools. The count reflects a genuinely wide data platform with meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, ask_pipeworx) already covering discovery, so the surface feels heavy for an agent to triage.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are well covered: querying (ask_pipeworx, grounded, deep_research), research profiles (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes), input resolution (resolve_entity), fact-checking (validate_claim), memory lifecycle, and subscription lifecycle all have complete loops. Minor gaps exist, notably no tool to fetch a pipeworx:// citation URI directly (search_within expects already-fetched text), and some one-off tools like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency feel bolted on.

Resources