Skip to main content
Glama

Github_private

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Bet Research

bet_research
Read-onlyIdempotent

Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call. Pass a market slug ("will-bitcoin-hit-150k-by-june-30-2026"), a polymarket.com URL, or a question text. The tool resolves the market, classifies the bet, fans out to category-specific data packs in parallel, and returns an evidence packet + simple market-vs-model comparison. Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z". CLASSIFIERS: crypto_price, fed_rate, geopolitical, sports, sports_championship, drug_approval, election_candidate, tech_launch, space_launch, corporate, corporate_earnings, corporate_event, public_figure_speech, weather, other. FAN-OUT EXAMPLES: BTC bet → coingecko + fred + gdelt+gnews; Fed bet → fred (DFEDTARU + EFFR + CPIAUCSL) + kalshi_macro (KXFED implied probs) + recent_fed_actions (federal-register rules, last 365d); Hormuz bet → imf_portwatch + airspace + gdelt; Yankees WS → mlb_stats_standings + parent_event partition + news; hottest-year bet → climate_projection_nyc + gistemp_latest (NASA global anomaly, rank since 1880) + news; NVDA-vs-AAPL → finnhub get_quote + edgar shares-outstanding (derived market cap) + edgar filings + news. RESPONSE SHAPES: result.market carries best_bid/best_ask/spread_pp/liquidity/price_change_1h/1d/1w; result.analysis carries model_probability/edge_pp/kelly_fraction_half when a closed-form model fires PLUS a 24h-move warning ("Market moved X.Xpp in 24h, comparable to model edge — your edge may already be priced in") when relevant; result.evidence is keyed by source. RESOLVER CONTRACT: result.market_match_confidence ∈ {high, medium, low, none}, market_match_score (0-1 token-overlap), market_match_alternatives[] (other candidate markets the resolver considered), and suggestions[] (explicit re-query hints when the match is fuzzy) — ALWAYS inspect these before trusting the analysis block, because medium/low matches can still surface other fields. PARENT_EVENT EXTRACTOR: when the bet is one leg of a partition (Yankees WS, Romania election), result.parent_event{matched_candidate, top_legs_by_price[], partition_size, placeholders_filtered} gives you the peer prices in one place — that's the headline for elections/championships. NEWS FIELDS: news entries carry _fallback_attempted / _fallback_failed_reason / retry_after_sec when GDELT 429s and GNews backfill ran or failed. SAFETY: low-confidence resolutions short-circuit with status:"low_confidence_match" and suppress analysis fields so agents can't accidentally size on phantom matches. Closed/dead markets that ARE still indexed by Polymarket (yes_price≈0, no volume, no liquidity) return status:"market_closed_or_inactive" and skip fan-out. In practice resolved markets are usually de-indexed and instead surface via the low_confidence_match path above — both routes are BLOCKING, just different mechanisms. Wide-spread markets (>10pp) carry tradeability:"illiquid_wide_spread" + an explanatory note. RESOLUTION-RULE RISK: market.cancellation_rule parses the void/postponement settlement out of the resolution text — refund_50_50 (shares settle flat 50¢ on void; EV-material for any entry away from 50¢, with ev_impact quantified), resolves_no_on_cancel, resolves_yes_on_cancel, carries_to_reschedule, or mentioned_unclear. null means the description never mentions cancellation. Check this before sizing sports/esports/event-occurrence bets — audited arb-bot ledgers show flat-50¢ void settlements are a recurring pure-rules loss.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthNoquick = 2-3 evidence sources, thorough = full fan-out. Default thorough.
marketYesPolymarket slug ("will-bitcoin-hit-150k-by-june-30-2026"), full URL ("https://polymarket.com/event/..."), or question text ("Will Bitcoin hit $150k by June 30?")
include_rawNoDefault false. When false (recommended), FRED/FDA/GDELT/Federal-Register evidence is summarized to the few fields agents actually use — keeps responses under ~20KB. Pass true to get full upstream payloads (50KB-500KB) when you need to recompute deltas, cite specific observations, or post-process.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / examples
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "market_input": "will fed cut rates in june 2026"
-  },
-  {
-    "market_input": "https://polymarket.com/event/will-bitcoin-hit-150k-by-june-30-2026"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "market": "will-bitcoin-reach-100k-in-july-2026"
+  },
+  {
+    "market": "https://polymarket.com/event/will-bitcoin-hit-150k-by-june-30-2026"
+  }
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already claim read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description goes far beyond: it reveals low-confidence short-circuiting ('low_confidence_match'), closed-market status ('market_closed_or_inactive'), spread illiquidity flags, a resolver contract requiring inspection of confidence fields, parent-event extraction, news fallback fields (e.g., '_fallback_attempted'), and cancellation-rule risk. All disclose meaningful runtime behavior without contradiction.

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 (several hundred words) but densely packed and organized with uppercase section headers (CLASSIFIERS, FAN-OUT EXAMPLES, RESPONSE SHAPES, RESOLVER CONTRACT, etc.), making it scannable. Every section explains behavior an agent needs to safely invoke the tool. It is not as tight as possible, but the verbosity is justified by the tool's complexity and rich response envelope.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must document return shapes. It does so thoroughly: result.market fields, result.analysis with model_probability/edge_pp, result.evidence keyed by source, parent_event, news fallback flags, status codes, and cancellation rules. The tool is complex, and the description covers all operational states and failure modes, making it complete for an agent to anticipate outcomes.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches the market parameter with examples of acceptable formats ('slug', URL, question text) and gives fan-out examples relevant to depth, but it does not materially extend the meaning of `depth` or `include_raw` beyond the schema's clear descriptions. It adds minimal new semantic value for the parameters themselves.

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 'Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call', giving a specific verb+resource. It clearly explains the resolution, classification, and fan-out behavior, and differentiates via stated use cases ('should I bet on X', 'what does the data say about Y', 'is there edge in Z'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage or ask_pipeworx.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly provides use cases ('Use for...'), plus a classifier list and fan-out examples that clarify intent. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternative tools for exclusions, so it lacks a full explicit when/when-not contrast.

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

All Github_private 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
Disambiguation2/5

There is significant overlap among many tools: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all serve query-answer purposes with subtle differences, and multiple polymarket tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) cover similar arbitrage/mispricing territory. Additionally, ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence clearly overlap, making it hard to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern. Some use a gh_ prefix (gh_get_file, gh_get_repo, etc.), others are descriptive phrases (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, bet_research), and a few are plain verbs (remember, recall, forget, subscribe, unsubscribe). The mixed conventions and varied verb/noun styles make the set feel disjointed.

Tool Count3/5

At 37 tools, the count is high but still within a usable range. However, the server is named 'Github_private' yet includes only 7 GitHub-specific tools and 30+ unrelated tools (Pipeworx data, Polymarket betting, memory, etc.). This suggests the server aggregates multiple unrelated domains, making the count feel bloated for its apparent GitHub purpose.

Completeness2/5

Given the server name, the GitHub tool surface is severely incomplete: there are no create/update/delete operations for repos, no PR creation or merging, no issue comments, no branches, and no search across repos. The Pipeworx side is fairly comprehensive, but the mismatch between the server name and the actual tool set leaves major gaps for expected GitHub workflows.

Resources