Skip to main content
Glama

Gets Nz

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds behavioral details: walks the order-book ladder, returns verdict (clean|degraded|cannot_fill), warns that partial basket fills convert arb into directional position, and notes the dominant loss mode. 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?

Well-structured with clear sections for single-market and basket, uses bold for emphasis. Dense with information but slightly long; every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with purpose and requirements.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description lists all return fields for both modes comprehensively. Covers edge cases (thin legs, forced directional risk, max clean notional). Fully explains what the tool returns and the implications.

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 description coverage is 100%, but description adds significant value: explains side defaults and auto-detection for baskets, interprets size_usd as settlement notional for baskets, and clarifies the meaning of each parameter in context of the two modes. Provides usage constraints and clamps.

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?

Description clearly states it performs a realizable vs theoretical edge check against live order-book depth, with explicit single-market and basket modes. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying exactly when to use this tool (before acting on arb signals or edges trades above $500).

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: before acting on polymarket_arbitrage Sell/Buy-Every-Leg signals or polymarket_edges trades above ~$500. Implicitly advises against use for small trades. Names alternatives (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges) for context.

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

All Gets Nz 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

Multiple tools overlap significantly: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded serve nearly identical purposes, and deep_research further duplicates. Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.) also have overlapping scopes, making it hard for an agent to select the correct one without deep inspection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names use a mix of patterns: some are descriptive phrases (ai_visibility_check, generate_llms_txt), others are domain-prefixed (nz_tender_*, polymarket_*) but lack a uniform verb_noun structure. The ask_pipeworx series diverges from the rest, and verb choices are inconsistent (compare_entities vs scan_competitor_ai_presence).

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the surface is large and feels bloated. The server covers multiple distinct domains (NZ tenders, Polymarket, memory, subscriptions) that could be separate servers. Many tools are variants of the same core functionality (e.g., four ask_pipeworx variants), inflating the count without clear necessity.

Completeness3/5

For a general-purpose data query server, the tool set covers a broad range of sources (SEC, FDA, FRED, etc.) and includes CRUD for memory and subscriptions. However, obvious gaps exist: no dedicated web search tool (ask_pipeworx is for structured data), and NZ coverage is limited to tenders only. Missing update/delete for some resources (e.g., no way to modify a subscription beyond unsubscribe).

Resources