Skip to main content
Glama

EUR-Lex

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds significant behavioral context: walks the ladder, returns top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc. It details basket behavior with thin_legs and forced_directional_risk, and explains partial fill risks. 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?

The description is a dense paragraph but well-structured with sections (REQUIRES, SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET, USE THIS). Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more concise. Given the complexity of the tool, it's appropriately detailed.

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 exists, but the description thoroughly explains all return fields for both modes. It covers edge cases (thin_legs, forced_directional_risk) and provides a verdict (clean|degraded|cannot_fill). The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 extra meaning: explains default side auto-selection for basket, clarifies size_usd interpretation for basket vs single-market, and mentions clamp range (10–1,000,000). This adds 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 clearly states it's a 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth'. It distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, and differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by specifying when to use this tool.

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 '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 not capturable, partial fills convert arb to directional position), providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All EUR-Lex 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
Disambiguation1/5

Multiple tools appear to do nearly the same thing: ask_pipeworx, ask_ipeworx_beta (explicitly identical at the moment), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route questionanswering in a very similar way. Even with long descriptions, the sheer number of overlapping query/research/analysis tools (ai_visibility_check vs scan_comperitor_ai_presence, all polymarket_*) would make an agent uncertain which to call.

Naming Consistency2/5

The set uses snake_case everywhere but that is the only consistent part. There is a mess of verb_noun patterns, noun_verb patterns (cjeu_search vs search_legislation, cj_judgment vs get_document), bare noun phrases (entity_profile, compliance_index, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges), and verb phrases (ask_ipeworx, generate_elms_txt, resolve_entry). A user cannot predict whether the noun comes first, so naming is readable but not predictable.

Tool Count2/5

39 tools is far over the 25+ threshold for a coherent set, and a large number of them (predictor markets ten, AI visibility, memory, subscriptions, pipework meta-tools) are outside the EUR-Lex legal research domain. The total count suggests a bundled everything-server rather than a focused legal-research MCP. It is not extreme enough for a 1 because 39 is still within a region where a broader meta-pipework suite could plausibly exist — but it's still too many.

Completeness4/5

For the EUR-Lex domain, the legal tools are nearly complete: search_legislation + compliance_index locate acts, get_metadata/list_articles/get_article/get_document read them, and cjeu_search/cjeu_judgment cover case law. Missing links that would make it fully seamless are amendment tracking, cross-references and direct CELEX/EURL-Lex citation search integration, but all basic 'find and read an act or judgment' workflows are supported.

Resources