Skip to main content
Glama

Gdacs

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description adds rich behavioral context: explains the two modes, what happens on partial fills, the risk of unhedged directional positions, and the verdict states. 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 long but densely packed with necessary detail. It front-loads the core purpose and then systematically covers modes, parameters, return fields, and usage warnings. Some structure (e.g., line breaks between modes) could improve scannability, but every sentence earns its place.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, capture_ratio, thin_legs, etc.), both operational modes, parameter semantics, and even edge-case risks. Nothing major is unaddressed.

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%, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema: clarifies size_usd interpretation in both modes (max spend vs target proceeds vs settlement notional), explains side defaults and auto-detection in basket mode, and notes clamping (10–1,000,000). This goes well beyond the baseline.

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 from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by focusing on fill risk and realizable edge.

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 states when to use: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' Also names alternatives implicitly and warns against theoretical overround on thin books.

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

All Gdacs 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear, distinct purposes, but the three ask_pipeworx variants (especially ask_pipeworx_beta, identical to ask_pipeworx) and the six Polymarket tools overlap conceptually and could cause misselection. Detailed descriptions largely compensate, but the boundaries between some meta-tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs deep_research vs bet_research) require careful reading.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case, but conventions are mixed: verb-first (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, discover_tools), noun-first compounds (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage), and single-word nouns (event, events, rss). The pattern is predictable for common actions but inconsistent across the set, making it harder to guess names for related tasks.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, the count is heavy and the server named 'Gdacs' includes many unrelated tools (Polymarket, npm scanning, AI visibility), indicating scope creep. Several tools could be consolidated (e.g., the ask_pipeworx family and multiple pattern-market scanners), and the breadth dilutes the disaster-alerting focus implied by the server name.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers core workflows: data querying (ask/research/validate), entity profiling, prediction-market analysis (arbitrage/edges/fill risk), and subscription management (create/list/cancel). Minor gaps exist, such as no direct fetch tool for a specific Pipeworx pack and limited GDACS event management (only read operations), but these are workable with the provided meta-tools.

Resources