Skip to main content
Glama

H1b

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?

The description fully discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: it explains the ladder-walking algorithm, returns specific fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc.), and details the risks of thin books and forced directional risk. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns perfectly.

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 well-structured with clear sections (REQUIRES, SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET) and every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently conveys complex information without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all return values for both modes, warns about thin legs and forced directional risk, and provides actionable context for distinguishing when to use this tool over alternatives.

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%, and the description adds significant semantic context: it explains the difference between single-market and basket modes, default values, and how size_usd is interpreted differently for buys vs sells and baskets. This goes well beyond the basic 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by specifying exactly 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 usage 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 warns against the risk of partial fills converting an arb into a directional position, which helps the agent decide when not to rely on this tool.

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

All H1b 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several overlapping clusters exist: ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research all handle research questions, polymarket_edges and polymarket_arbitrage both scan for trading opportunities, and discover_tools/suggest_questions serve similar discovery purposes. The long, use-case-specific descriptions help, but an agent could still easily pick the wrong tool among these near-duplicates.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun or noun pattern (resolve_entity, validate_claim, list_subscriptions, h1b_salary), which is fairly consistent. However, there are deviations: bare verbs like recall/remember/forget/subscribe, noun-only phrases like entity_profile and recent_changes, and the ask_pipeworx_beta suffix variant break the pattern slightly.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well past the 25+ threshold, and the server is named 'H1b' while only 3 of the 34 tools relate to H-1B data. The rest is a sprawling mix of data research, prediction-market analytics, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility checks, and unrelated utilities like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency — a severe scope mismatch.

Completeness4/5

As a de facto Pipeworx research platform, the surface is nearly complete: open-ended queries, grounded evidence mode, deep multi-source research, entity resolution, comparison, claim validation, subscriptions, memory, and feedback. The H-1B sub-domain covers employer, salary, and top-sponsor lookups, though the mention of green cards is a small mismatch since only LCA data is provided.

Resources