Skip to main content
Glama

genderize

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds substantial context: 'walks the ladder', returns slippage, VWAP, verdict, per-leg fill details, thin_legs[], and forced_directional_risk. It also warns about partial fill risks, offering depth beyond annotation hints. 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 highly structured: a one-sentence summary, then mode-specific details, then actionable usage guidance. Every sentence carries information; however, it could be tightened without losing key content, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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 (two modes, four parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It lists return fields for both modes, explains output semantics like capture_ratio and max_clean_notional_usd, and provides risk context. Nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and each parameter already has detailed meaning (e.g., side defaults, size_usd interpretation). The tool description adds the one-of market/event constraint and restates mode-specific semantics, but does not significantly expand beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's core function precisely: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It clearly distinguishes two modes (single-market and basket) and explains each mode's inputs and outputs, which differentiates 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 instructs when to use this tool: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also explains the rationale (theoretical overround on thin books is not capturable, partial basket fills create unhedged directional risk), providing clear exclusions.

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

All genderize 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools route the same style of query to the same Pipeworx catalog: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all overlap in purpose, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx. The prediction-market tools also blur together, with bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, and polymarket_fill_risk all covering overlapping analysis territory.

Naming Consistency3/5

The tools are consistently lowercase snake_case, but the naming convention is mixed: some are verb_noun (predict_gender, generate_llms_txt), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts), some are bare verbs (remember, forget), and many share domain prefixes like ask_pipeworx or polymarket_. It is readable, but there is no single predictable pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold where the surface becomes hard to navigate. More importantly, the count does not match the server's apparent genderize identity: the vast majority of tools are unrelated Pipeworx research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription utilities bolted onto a two-tool gender-prediction core.

Completeness3/5

As a broad research assistant, the set is substantial: it covers question routing, grounded verification, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, change feeds, memory, and subscriptions. However, the actual genderize domain is thin—just two prediction tools with no batch, supported-country, or accuracy endpoints—and several unrelated capabilities feel bolted on, making coverage uneven.

Resources