Skip to main content
Glama

Grants Gov

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, safe behavior. The description adds significant context: explains it walks the order-book ladder, returns specific fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, etc.), and highlights risks like forced_directional_risk and partial fill pitfalls. 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 well-structured: core purpose first, then requirements, then mode-specific details. It is slightly long but each sentence adds necessary information. The structure aids readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, but the description comprehensively lists expected return fields for both modes (e.g., top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, capture_ratio, thin_legs, forced_directional_risk). It covers edge cases and risks, making it complete enough for an agent to understand what to expect.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description enhances meaning by explaining size_usd as 'settlement notional' in basket mode, default side logic, and clarifying units. It adds value beyond the schema though the schema already covers basics.

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: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, and differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by specifying when to use this tool before acting on those signals.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also clarifies the two modes (market vs event) and explains the rationale for using this tool (theoretical overround not capturable on thin books, partial fills causing unhedged positions).

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

All Grants Gov 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

Many tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research all handle broad queries; multiple Polymarket tools exist for edge finding; entity_profile/compare_entities/recent_changes/resolve_entity overlap on company data. An agent would struggle to pick the right tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming patterns are mixed: some use verb_noun (search_opportunities, get_opportunity), some are phrases (ask_pipeworx_grounded, polymarket_edge_tracker), and some are vague (recall, forget). No consistent convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is high, but the core issue is that the server name 'Grants Gov' implies a narrow focus, yet only 2 tools are about grants. The sheer number of unrelated tools makes the set feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

For the actual domain of general data querying and prediction markets, the tool surface is fairly complete, covering many sources. However, for 'Grants Gov' it is severely incomplete (missing all but opportunities). Overall, the scope is broad but lacks depth in any one area.

Resources