Skip to main content
Glama

Expression Atlas

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description details the tool's behavior, including walking the order book ladder, returning specific fields like top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, verdict, and for basket mode, theoretical_sum vs realizable_sum, capture_ratio, profit_usd, thin_legs, etc., and warns about partial fills converting arb into directional positions, adding value beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a concise summary, REQUIRES, SINGLE-MARKET, and BASKET sections, and usage guidance, all front-loaded. Every sentence adds necessary value without redundancy, efficiently conveying complex information.

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) and sibling tools, the description thoroughly covers return values for both modes, behavioral risks, and usage context, making it fully self-contained and adequate for correct invocation.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds crucial context: it explains the two modes (market vs event), default side auto based on partition sum for baskets, interpretation of size_usd as max spend vs target proceeds for singles and settlement notional for baskets, and default values, greatly aiding correct parameter selection.

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', distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, and ties it to specific pre-trade validation scenarios, differentiating it from sibling tools 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 advises using this tool before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500, and warns against relying on theoretical overround on thin books, 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 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