Skip to main content
Glama

Gitlab

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 declare readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral context: it walks the order-book ladder, returns specific verdicts and fields, explains size_usd interpretation (max spend vs target proceeds vs settlement notional), and names risk factors like forced_directional_risk. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is long but every sentence serves a purpose. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized into clearly labeled SINGLE-MARKET and BASKET sections. Despite density, the structure aids scanning, and there is no wasted text or repetition of schema information.

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?

This is a complex tool with two modes and no output schema, yet the description enumerates the full set of return fields for both modes, explains parameter defaults and clamps, and warns about the primary risk (partial fills stranding unhedged positions). It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly and interpret results.

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?

Though the schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions, the tool description enriches meaning significantly. It explains how `market` vs `event` selects single-market vs basket mode, how `side` semantics differ between modes, and how `size_usd` is interpreted differently ('max spend on buys, target proceeds on sells' for single-market; 'settlement notional S' for basket). This goes well beyond the schema.

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 clear, specific verb phrase 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' and immediately distinguishes the two operating modes. It also names sibling tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges) as the context where this tool should be used, differentiating it from those alternatives.

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 usage guidance: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It explains why by describing the failure mode of partial basket fills converting an arb into unhedged directional risk, making the when-to-use decision clear.

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

All Gitlab 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, notably ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded which are near-identical in function. The polymarket_* family also has several members with closely related scopes, and the large number of data-query tools makes it hard to choose the right one without careful reading.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb-first (list_subscriptions, validate_claim), others are noun-first (entity_profile, bet_research), and proper-noun prefixes like pipeworx_ and polymarket_ are used liberally. The gitlab_* tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern, but the rest of the set is mixed.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the server is overloaded, especially given that only 5 are GitLab-related while the rest are a sprawling data-access toolkit. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., the ask_pipeworx variants), and the count exceeds what is reasonable for a focused GitLab server.

Completeness2/5

For a server named Gitlab, the coverage is severely incomplete: only list/get operations exist for projects, issues, and MRs, with no create, update, or delete capabilities. The broader data tools are more complete, but the nominal purpose of the server is clearly not fulfilled.

Resources