Skip to main content
Glama

Ieee Standards

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
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description does not contradict these and adds behavioral details: checks live order book depth, walks the ladder, warns about partial fills converting arb to directional position. With annotations already covering safety, the description adds specific execution details.

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 a single paragraph that is efficiently structured—front-loads the purpose, then details modes and outputs. While it is relatively long, every sentence adds value given the tool's complexity. Minor improvement could be breaking into sections, but it is not verbose.

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 exists, so the description must detail return values. It thoroughly describes outputs for both modes: top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, max_fillable_usd, verdict for single-market; theoretical_sum, realizable_sum, capture_ratio, profit_usd, per-leg detail, thin_legs, max_clean_notional_usd, forced_directional_risk for baskets. This fully informs the agent of what to expect.

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%, but the description adds meaning: explains the difference between single-market and basket modes, default side logic, and interpretation of size_usd as settlement notional for baskets. This goes beyond the schema's 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 distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, and lists specific outputs. This differentiates it from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges.

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 states 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 the reasoning (theoretical overround not capturable, partial fills create directional risk), providing both positive and negative guidance.

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

All Ieee Standards 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools blur together: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer factual questions with overlapping routing behavior, while polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and bet_research all surface prediction-market opportunities. Long descriptions help, but the boundaries between these clusters are genuinely unclear, and the three IEEE tools are buried in a sea of unrelated Pipeworx tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming is predominantly snake_case with clear family prefixes like ieee_, ask_pipeworx_, and polymarket_, and most tools follow a readable verb_noun or noun_verb shape. Minor deviations exist (remember/recall/forget, bet_research, pipeworx_trending) but there is no camelCase/mixed-convention problem, so the overall pattern is predictable.

Tool Count1/5

A server named 'Ieee Standards' exposes 34 tools, yet only three of them (ieee_search, ieee_standard_search, ieee_article) actually serve that domain. The remaining 31 tools form a general Pipeworx data, prediction-market, memory, and subscription platform, which is an extreme scope mismatch for the stated server purpose.

Completeness4/5

For the IEEE lookup domain, the three IEEE tools cover the core read-only workflow: broad corpus search, standards-specific search, and full metadata retrieval by article number or DOI. Minor gaps exist (browsing by committee, revision/status history, full-text access) but those are workable or inherently restricted by IEEE's paywall.

Resources