Skip to main content
Glama

Ensembl

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds significant behavioral context beyond these: it requires one of two mutually exclusive parameters, walks the order book ladder, returns a verdict (clean|degraded|cannot_fill), and highlights forced_directional_risk for basket mode. This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and failure modes.

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: it starts with a one-line purpose, then details single-market mode, basket mode, and usage guidance. Every sentence provides necessary information for a complex tool with two modes. It could be slightly more concise (e.g., splitting into bullet points), but the density is purposeful and front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is remarkably complete. It explains return values for both modes, parameter behavior, risk factors (thin_legs, forced_directional_risk), and concrete usage thresholds. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does or what it returns.

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% with each parameter described, but the description goes further by explaining mode-specific interpretations: size_usd means 'max spend on buys, target proceeds on sells' in single-market mode but 'settlement notional S (shares per leg)' in basket mode. It also clarifies defaults ('default buy_yes', 'default auto from partition sum') and clamps (10–1,000,000), adding 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 opens with a specific verb+resource phrase: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from related siblings like polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on fill-risk assessment rather than signal generation. The two modes (single-market and basket) are explicitly named and contrasted.

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 explicit usage direction: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also explains why (theoretical overround on thin books is not capturable, partial fills create unhedged directional positions), which tells the agent when this tool is necessary and what alternatives exist.

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

All Ensembl 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

There is heavy overlap in the ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research, validate_claim) — several are near-identical 'route a natural-language question to a source' tools differing only by small qualifiers. ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence and entity_profile vs compare_entities vs recent_changes also blur together. An agent could easily misselect among these.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant convention is snake_case verb_noun/noun_verb (list_subscriptions, scan_dependency, validate_claim, resolve_entity) which is fairly consistent, but there are several bare single-word verbs (lookup, sequence, variation, vep, xrefs, recall, remember, forget) that break the pattern. No camelCase is present, so the inconsistency is minor rather than chaotic.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is heavy, and the overwhelming majority (~31) are Pipeworx meta-tools (subscriptions, memory, feedback, trend, discovery, llms.txt generation) that have nothing to do with the server's declared Ensembl identity. Only about 7 tools are actually genomics-related, so the count is inflated by off-domain additions that dilute the surface.

Completeness2/5

For the Ensembl domain, the surface covers gene lookup, symbol resolution, sequence retrieval, orthologs, SNPs, variant effect prediction, and xrefs — but misses major Ensembl capabilities like gene trees/families, regulatory features, comparative/multi-species alignments, expression data, phenotypes, GO/ontology annotations, and region/overlap queries. Conversely the Pipeworx tools are complete for their own domain but irrelevant here, leaving the declared domain notably incomplete.

Resources