Skip to main content
Glama

Fmi

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?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond that: it walks the order-book ladder, returns specific metrics (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, max_fillable_usd, verdict), and highlights the risk of partial basket fills creating unhedged directional positions. No contradictions 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is long but structured with clear sections for single-market vs basket mode, each with input/output details. It front-loads the purpose and then provides essential usage context. Every sentence carries useful information, and the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

With 4 params (100% schema coverage), no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all modes, input requirements, output fields, interpretation of size_usd, risk factors, and direct usage guidance. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without further clarification.

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%, so baseline is 3. However, the description enriches parameter meaning substantially: it explains the market vs event mode distinction, how size_usd is interpreted differently in single-market vs basket mode (max spend/target proceeds vs settlement notional), and default side behavior. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by explicitly stating it should be used before acting on polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_edges signals, naming the exact alternative tools.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also explains why alternative tools are insufficient and why this check is necessary, covering both context and exclusions.

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

All Fmi 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are well-differentiated, with detailed descriptions clarifying their distinct purposes. However, there is some overlap between the multiple 'ask' tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, suggest_questions) and between weather tools (forecast, latest_observations, recent_observations, warnings), which could cause confusion. Overall, ambiguity is low.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 34 tool names follow a consistent lowercase_with_underscores (snake_case) pattern. Names are descriptive and predictable, such as 'ask_pipeworx', 'entity_profile', 'polymarket_arbitrage', etc. No mixing of conventions like camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.

Tool Count3/5

The server has 34 tools, which is on the higher side given its broad scope covering weather, company research, prediction markets, and general data queries. While not excessive, it could be split into more focused servers for clarity. The count feels a bit heavy but still manageable.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of data domains (weather, company financials, prediction markets, news, memory, subscriptions) with reasonable completeness. Minor gaps exist, such as limited weather coverage (Finland only) and no direct support for non-company entities or unofficial data sources, but core workflows are well-supported.

Resources