Skip to main content
Glama

Gnews

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral context: walking order-book ladder, returning verdicts (clean/degraded/cannot_fill), per-leg details, and identifying forced directional risk. No contradictions 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 lengthy but well-structured with bold headers for modes. Every sentence adds value, explaining return fields and edge cases. Minor improvement could be more compact, but given complexity it is efficient.

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 enumerates all return fields for both modes, including edge cases like thin_legs and forced_directional_risk. It covers usage constraints, behavioral traits, and error states, making it self-contained for agent use.

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 substantial meaning beyond schema descriptions. For each parameter it explains mode-specific interpretations (e.g., size_usd meaning for single-market vs basket), defaults, and constraints (clamp 10–1,000,000). Side parameter explains mode-dependent defaults and enum values.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: checking realizable-vs-theoretical edge against live CLOB order-book depth. It distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, and explicitly references sibling tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges) to differentiate when to use this tool.

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 guidance: use this tool before acting on polymarket_arbitrage signals or polymarket_edges trades above ~$500. It explains why (theoretical overround not capturable, partial fills create unhedged positions) and gives clear context for each mode.

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

All Gnews 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct, well-described purposes, but there is some overlap, especially among prediction market tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, etc.) and between ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded. Agents might occasionally select the wrong tool without careful reading.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names follow a mix of snake_case and camelCase (e.g., ai_visibility_check vs discover_tools). Some names are descriptive but inconsistent in style (subscribe, unsubscribe, list_subscriptions). Pattern is not uniform.

Tool Count3/5

With 32 tools, the server covers many domains (news, financials, prediction markets, entity resolution, memory). While each tool has a justification, the count feels heavy for a single server, and some tools could be consolidated.

Completeness3/5

The tool set spans a wide range of data sources and operations, but there are notable gaps. For news, only search and top headlines exist without advanced filtering. Prediction markets lack order placement tools. The broad scope means depth is sacrificed in some areas.

Resources