Skip to main content
Glama

Hnb Hr

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, confirming a safe check. The description adds significant behavioral context: requires one of 'market' or 'event', explains verdict options ('clean|degraded|cannot_fill'), and warns about forced directional risk from thin legs. 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 structured with sections ('SINGLE-MARKET', 'BASKET') and bullet points, front-loading the purpose. It is verbose but every sentence provides necessary detail; slight redundancy could be trimmed.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains return values for both modes (e.g., top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, verdict for single; theoretical_sum, capture_ratio, profit_usd, thin_legs for basket). It covers edge cases like partial fills and directional risk, making it complete for informed tool selection.

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 description coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema: explains side behavior for basket (auto-detect from partition sum), interprets size_usd differently for basket (settlement notional), and clarifies defaults and clamps. This adds value but the schema already has good 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 performs a 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' and distinguishes between single-market and basket modes. It explicitly ties its usage to specific sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges, differentiating itself as a pre-trade validation step.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description tells when to use the tool ('before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500') and explains the rationale (theoretical overround not capturable, partial fills create directional risk). It lacks explicit exclusion criteria or alternative tools for other scenarios.

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

All Hnb Hr 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical (beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx), and deep_research and validate_claim also overlap with the ask_pipeworx family. The Polymarket tools are more distinct, but the query family creates real ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix leading verbs (ask_, compare_, resolve_, scan_) with leading nouns (entity_profile, recent_changes, hnb_currency_rate) and there are multiple subfamily prefixes (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, hnb_*). All are snake_case, but no consistent verb_noun or noun pattern is followed.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well above the 25+ threshold, and the server name ('Hnb Hr') implies a narrow Croatian banking scope while the majority of tools are for a broad data research platform. Many meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending) inflate the count beyond what the apparent purpose needs.

Completeness3/5

The HNB currency functionality is complete (single and all rates, historical and latest), and the broader data platform offers good coverage via the ask_pipeworx router, subscriptions, and memory tools. However, there are gaps (no direct HNB news or historical archive tool, patents soft-fail, and out-of-domain tools like generate_llms_txt), and the mismatch between server name and content leaves the surface feeling incomplete.

Resources