Skip to main content
Glama

Housing Intel

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, etc.) and adds substantial behavioral detail: how it walks the order book, interprets size_usd differently per mode, returns verdict (clean/degraded/cannot_fill), and highlights risks like thin legs and forced directional risk. No contradictions.

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 with clear sections (REQUIRES, SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET) and front-loads the core purpose. While lengthy, every sentence provides necessary detail given the tool's complexity. Minor verbosity could be trimmed but overall 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?

Given the tool's complexity (two modes, multiple return fields, no output schema), the description is exceptionally complete. It explains return values (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, capture_ratio, etc.), the verdict system, and risks like partial fills and unhedged positions. No gaps remain.

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 significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains the distinction between single-market and basket modes, default values for side and size_usd, and how size_usd is interpreted differently (max spend vs target proceeds vs settlement notional). This goes beyond the basic parameter 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 specifies two distinct modes (single-market and basket) and explains the return values. It differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by focusing on fill risk verification.

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 explicitly says when to use: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It explains why: 'theoretical overround on thin books is not capturable, and partial basket fills convert an arb into an unhedged directional position.' No alternative tools are named, but the context makes usage clear.

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

All Housing Intel 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

Several tools intentionally overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded share the same router, with the beta variant explicitly matching stable behavior right now. entity_profille/recent_changes/compare_entities and the multiple polymarket scanning tools also cover closely related jobs, so an agent must read carefully to avoid picking the wrong variant.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools use lowercase snake_case, which is a consistent base style. However, the naming grammar is mixed: proper verb_noun tools like compare_entities and validate_claim sit beside noun-phrase/domain tools like housing_market_screen and polymarket_edges, plus the awkward compound case_shiller_metro_compare. The housing_ and polymarket_ prefixes help, but the pattern is not uniform enough for a 5.

Tool Count2/5

41 tools far exceeds the 25+ threshold and the typical well-scoped 3-15 range. Many tools pertyain to Polymarket, npm scanning, llms.txt generation, and memory, which have little to do with Housing Intel, so the count is not earned by the server's stated domain.

Completeness4/5

For the housing domain specifically, the coverage is strong: market snapshot, affordability, employment, mortgage history, rental/property analysis, metro demand, signal scanning, and Case-Shiller comparisons cover the main data needs. The generic ask_pipeworx and deep_research tools also backfill specialized queries. The weakness is scope blur, not obvious missing housing operations.

Resources