Skip to main content
Glama

Idigbio

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds detailed behavioral context: walks the order book ladder, returns verdicts (clean|degraded|cannot_fill), and warns about forced directional risk. 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 dense and structured with bold headers for modes, but it is somewhat lengthy. However, every sentence adds value; minor reduction could improve conciseness without losing clarity.

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 is provided, but the description thoroughly lists return fields for both modes, including edge cases like thin_legs and forced_directional_risk. It explains the risk of partial basket fills, making the output expectation clear.

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?

All four parameters have 100% schema coverage, but the description adds significant meaning: explains size_usd interpretation for buys vs sells and basket mode (settlement notional), side defaults and auto-detection in basket mode, and market/event distinction. The description provides context beyond the schema.

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 as a 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' and distinguishes two modes (single-market and basket). It differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by indicating this tool is a prerequisite check.

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 the tool: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It explains the rationale (theoretical overround not capturable on thin books, partial fills converting arb to directional risk).

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

All Idigbio 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 route to the same underlying Pipeworx engine (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research), and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now. The polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) and the entity-investigation tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, resolve_entity) also have heavily overlapping purposes that an agent could easily confuse.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case, but the set mixes verb-first names (get_specimen, search_specimens, resolve_entity, validate_claim) with noun-first names (entity_profile, recent_alerts, polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending). The polymarket_ and pipeworx_ prefixes give some internal consistency, but the overall pattern is not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy for a server named Idigbio, especially since only 3 of the 34 tools (count_by_field, get_specimen, search_specimens) actually relate to iDigBio specimen data. The remaining 31 are a sprawling Pipeworx/prediction-market/marketing/memory toolkit, making the tool count mismatched with the server's apparent identity.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx side is quite complete: querying, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, subscriptions, memory, and feedback are all present. However, the iDigBio side, which the server name advertises, is only minimally covered with search/get/count and lacks any collection or media download operations, so the overall surface has notable gaps relative to the server's stated focus.

Resources