Skip to main content
Glama

Expression Atlas

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Polymarket Arbitrage

polymarket_arbitrage
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks. Call with NO args for a trending_scan of the top ~200 markets by weekly volume; pass event for the strongest per-event partition_check, or topic for a themed cross-event scan. event (recommended for a specific market): pass a Polymarket event slug like "fed-decision-may-2026" or "when-will-bitcoin-hit-150k"; walks child markets, checks date-axis / threshold-axis ordering AND computes the partition_check (sum of YES prices across mutually-exclusive legs — should ≈1; deviations >3pp emit a BUY/SELL EVERY LEG signal). topic (for cross-event scanning): pass a seed question like "Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal" or "Fed rate decision"; searches related events across the platform, flattens markets, runs the comparator on the union. Cross-event mode catches "...by May 31" vs "...by Jun 30" patterns that single-event misses. SEMANTIC ANCHOR: cross-event pairs require ≥0.30 Jaccard similarity on question tokens (prevents Powell-Fed-Pause being paired with Powell-DOJ-probe); skipped_low_similarity surfaces the rejected pair count. PARTITION FILTER: drops will-person-X / will-manager-Y / will-someone-else- placeholder slugs; partitions with >20% placeholder fraction return null arb signal. Response: opportunities[] (gap_pp, suggested_trade, reasoning, monotonicity violation context), and in event mode partition_check{sum_yes_prices, gap_from_1, placeholders_filtered, suggested_trade}. FILL CHECK: when the partition signal fires, arbitrage.fill_check prices it against live CLOB depth (theoretical_edge_pp_at_book vs realizable_edge_pp at 1000 shares/leg, thin_legs[]) — realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0 means the overround exists only at last-trade, not in the book; do not trade it. For custom sizing use polymarket_fill_risk.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eventNoSingle-event mode (use this if you know the specific Polymarket event): event slug like "fed-decision-may-2026" or "when-will-bitcoin-hit-150k". Full Polymarket URLs also accepted.
topicNoCross-event mode (use this if you want to scan related events across the platform): a topic or seed question like "Fed rate decision" or "Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal". Tool searches Polymarket for related events and checks monotonicity across them.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds extensive behavioral context beyond annotations: explains similarity threshold (0.30 Jaccard), partition filter (placeholder fraction >20% returns null), fill check against CLOB depth. Annotations only indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive; description discloses algorithmic details 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?

Front-loaded with a clear summary sentence and well-organized sections for each mode. However, the description is verbose and includes redundant technical details (e.g., repeated mention of partition_check logic). Could be slightly more concise without losing value.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, nested objects, or required parameters, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the response structure (opportunities[], partition_check) and cross-references other tools (polymarket_fill_risk). Context signals (low complexity) are fully satisfied.

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 both parameters described. The description adds significant meaning: explains event slugs/URLs, topic seed questions, mode selection logic, and what each parameter triggers (event mode does partition_check, topic mode cross-event scanning with similarity anchor).

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 finds arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes between three modes (no args, event, topic) and differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_fill_risk.

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 describes when to use each mode: no args for trending scan, event for specific market (recommended), topic for cross-event scanning. Also notes when to use polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing and warns against trading when realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0.

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

All Expression Atlas 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
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., multiple Polymarket tools, multiple company information tools), but descriptions help distinguish them. However, the variety of domains (brand monitoring, betting, package scanning, memory, etc.) can confuse an agent.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names have no consistent naming pattern: some are verb_noun (validate_claim), some are noun_verb (bet_research), some are compound (ai_visibility_check), and some are single word (forget). This makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

28 tools is high, and the set spans many unrelated domains (brand visibility, SEC/FDA data, Polymarket, npm packages, memory, etc.) while the server is named 'Expression Atlas' with only 2 tools related to that purpose. The tool count feels excessive and unfocused.

Completeness1/5

For a server named 'Expression Atlas', only two tools (get_experiment, search_experiments) cover the domain. There are no tools for submitting, updating, or deleting experiments, nor any for data visualization. The surface is severely incomplete.

Resources