Skip to main content
Glama

Entur

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false) are all consistent with the description. The description adds behavioral context: it walks the ladder, returns verdict (clean/degraded/cannot_fill), warns about thin legs and forced directional risk. No contradictions.

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 relatively long but well-structured with clear sections for single-market and basket modes. Every sentence adds value, though minor redundancy exists (e.g., explaining both modes in detail). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and usage guidelines.

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 (two modes, many parameters, no output schema), the description is comprehensive. It covers inputs, process, outputs (listing return fields), risks (thin books, partial fills), and usage context. No gaps remain for effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema. For example, it explains how size_usd is interpreted differently in single-market vs basket mode (max spend vs target proceeds vs settlement notional). It also clarifies default side behavior in basket mode (auto from partition sum). This adds significant semantic value.

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 is a 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth'. It specifies two modes (single-market and basket), explains what each mode does, and lists outputs like top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, verdict, etc. This distinguishes it well from siblings 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?

The description explicitly says '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 on thin books is not capturable, and partial basket fills convert an arb into an unhedged directional position. This provides clear when-to-use and why-not alternatives.

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

All Entur 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Although many tools are individually well-described, there are several overlapping clusters: three ask_pipeworx variants, multiple polymarket edge/arbitrage tools, and AI-visibility checks vs their competitor-comparison wrapper. An agent can easily pick the wrong one because the boundaries (beta vs stable, grounded vs routed, edge vs arbitrage) are subtle despite the verbose descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set is consistently snake_case and mostly readable, so naming is not chaotic. However, the pattern is mixed: some tools use entur_/polymarket_/pipeworx_ prefixes, others are bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), and some are noun phrases (entity_profile, pipeworx_trending). The ask_pipeworx family also doesn't follow the pipeworx_ prefix convention used by neighboring tools.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well past the healthy range for a focused MCP server, and only three tools relate to the Entur transport domain implied by the server name. The other 31 tools form a separate, broad data/prediction-market product that appears bolted on, making the count inappropriate for the apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

The Entur transport subset has stops search, departures, and journey planning, but misses common public-transport needs such as disruptions, service alerts, and fare/ticket information. The broader tool set is extensive but lacks a single coherent domain to be complete against, leaving the overall surface scattered and hard to trust as an integrated whole.

Resources