Skip to main content
Glama

Gtin

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds rich behavioral context: walks the ladder, returns fill details, and warns that partial basket fills convert arb into unhedged directional position—the dominant loss mode. No 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?

Dense and informative, but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points). Every sentence earns its place, but length is justified by complexity. Front-loaded with key purpose.

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?

No output schema, but description lists all return fields for both modes, explains risk scenarios, and covers edge cases. Complete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

100% schema coverage, but description adds value: explains basket mode default side logic, size_usd clamp (10–1,000,000), and difference between market and event parameters. Goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 specifies a 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' with clear single-market and basket modes. It distinguishes from siblings by stating 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade 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 advises when to use: before acting on arbitrage signals or trades above $500. Explains why not to use for thin books or partial fills due to directional risk. Clearly differentiates from sibling tools.

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

All Gtin 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all handle query routing, and the five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research blur the line between market scanning, edge detection, and fill-risk analysis. Several pairs (entity_profile/compare_entities/recent_changes, ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence) also overlap substantially.

Naming Consistency2/5

The tool names mix multiple conventions: verb_noun (validate_gtin, list_subscriptions, generate_llms_txt), brand-prefixed groups (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx*), and bare nouns (entity_profile, recent_alerts). The server is named after GTIN/barcodes, yet most tools are branded Pipeworx or Polymarket, making the set feel incoherently named.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well over the threshold where a typical agent can comfortably navigate the surface, especially since they span unrelated domains: barcode validation, data lookups, prediction-market arbitrage, memory storage, subscriptions, npm scanning, and llms.txt generation. The count reflects an overgrown grab bag rather than a well-scoped toolset.

Completeness2/5

There is no coherent domain to assess completeness against: for the server's apparent GTIN/barcode purpose, only gtin_check_digit and validate_gtin exist (and not even a lookup for product data by GTIN). For the broader Pipeworx platform hinted at by most tools, the surface is scattered, with deep coverage of prediction-market edges but arbitrary one-off utilities elsewhere.

Resources