Skip to main content
Glama

Etherscan

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 indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds behavioral details: walks order book ladder, returns verdict and fill metrics, explains basket mode risks like thin_legs and forced_directional_risk. 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 labeled sections, but slightly verbose. Every sentence is informative, but could be tightened slightly without losing clarity.

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, description fully documents return fields for both modes, including edge case detection (thin_legs) and risk warnings. Complete for agent usage.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions; description adds meaning (e.g., side default behavior, size_usd interpretation for buys vs sells and basket notion). Clarifies market vs event modes.

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 performs a 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth', with explicit modes (single-market and basket). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a pre-trade risk check for arbitrage and edge signals.

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 says when to use: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' Explains why partial fills create directional risk, providing clear usage context.

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

All Etherscan 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Multiple tools serve nearly identical purposes (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) with only marginal differences, and the Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_kalshi_spread) heavily overlaps in its goal of finding betting edges. An agent would struggle to pick the right tool without reading every description in detail.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: verb_noun (get_balance, list_transactions), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes), brand prefixes (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges), and adjectival forms (deep_research, compare_entities). The naming is readable but does not follow a single predictable convention.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the count exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' even for a general-purpose data server. The situation is worsened by the fact that the server is named Etherscan but only 5 of the 36 tools relate to Ethereum/blockchain, making the count unjustified for the apparent purpose.

Completeness4/5

For the de facto domain (Pipeworx data routing, prediction-market research, entity profiles, claim validation, subscriptions, memory), the tool surface is quite comprehensive: it covers lookup, research, comparison, grounding, and monitoring. Missing are a few edge operations (e.g., no Etherscan transaction-by-hash tool), but the broader domain is well-covered with only minor gaps.

Resources