Skip to main content
Glama

Ine Pt

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Bet Research

bet_research
Read-onlyIdempotent

Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call. Pass a market slug ("will-bitcoin-hit-150k-by-june-30-2026"), a polymarket.com URL, or a question text. The tool resolves the market, classifies the bet, fans out to category-specific data packs in parallel, and returns an evidence packet + simple market-vs-model comparison. Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z". CLASSIFIERS: crypto_price, fed_rate, geopolitical, sports, sports_championship, drug_approval, election_candidate, tech_launch, space_launch, corporate, corporate_earnings, corporate_event, public_figure_speech, weather, other. FAN-OUT EXAMPLES: BTC bet → coingecko + fred + gdelt+gnews; Fed bet → fred (DFEDTARU + EFFR + CPIAUCSL) + kalshi_macro (KXFED implied probs) + recent_fed_actions (federal-register rules, last 365d); Hormuz bet → imf_portwatch + airspace + gdelt; Yankees WS → mlb_stats_standings + parent_event partition + news; hottest-year bet → climate_projection_nyc + gistemp_latest (NASA global anomaly, rank since 1880) + news; NVDA-vs-AAPL → finnhub get_quote + edgar shares-outstanding (derived market cap) + edgar filings + news. RESPONSE SHAPES: result.market carries best_bid/best_ask/spread_pp/liquidity/price_change_1h/1d/1w; result.analysis carries model_probability/edge_pp/kelly_fraction_half when a closed-form model fires PLUS a 24h-move warning ("Market moved X.Xpp in 24h, comparable to model edge — your edge may already be priced in") when relevant; result.evidence is keyed by source. RESOLVER CONTRACT: result.market_match_confidence ∈ {high, medium, low, none}, market_match_score (0-1 token-overlap), market_match_alternatives[] (other candidate markets the resolver considered), and suggestions[] (explicit re-query hints when the match is fuzzy) — ALWAYS inspect these before trusting the analysis block, because medium/low matches can still surface other fields. PARENT_EVENT EXTRACTOR: when the bet is one leg of a partition (Yankees WS, Romania election), result.parent_event{matched_candidate, top_legs_by_price[], partition_size, placeholders_filtered} gives you the peer prices in one place — that's the headline for elections/championships. NEWS FIELDS: news entries carry _fallback_attempted / _fallback_failed_reason / retry_after_sec when GDELT 429s and GNews backfill ran or failed. SAFETY: low-confidence resolutions short-circuit with status:"low_confidence_match" and suppress analysis fields so agents can't accidentally size on phantom matches. Closed/dead markets that ARE still indexed by Polymarket (yes_price≈0, no volume, no liquidity) return status:"market_closed_or_inactive" and skip fan-out. In practice resolved markets are usually de-indexed and instead surface via the low_confidence_match path above — both routes are BLOCKING, just different mechanisms. Wide-spread markets (>10pp) carry tradeability:"illiquid_wide_spread" + an explanatory note. RESOLUTION-RULE RISK: market.cancellation_rule parses the void/postponement settlement out of the resolution text — refund_50_50 (shares settle flat 50¢ on void; EV-material for any entry away from 50¢, with ev_impact quantified), resolves_no_on_cancel, resolves_yes_on_cancel, carries_to_reschedule, or mentioned_unclear. null means the description never mentions cancellation. Check this before sizing sports/esports/event-occurrence bets — audited arb-bot ledgers show flat-50¢ void settlements are a recurring pure-rules loss.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthNoquick = 2-3 evidence sources, thorough = full fan-out. Default thorough.
marketYesPolymarket slug ("will-bitcoin-hit-150k-by-june-30-2026"), full URL ("https://polymarket.com/event/..."), or question text ("Will Bitcoin hit $150k by June 30?")
include_rawNoDefault false. When false (recommended), FRED/FDA/GDELT/Federal-Register evidence is summarized to the few fields agents actually use — keeps responses under ~20KB. Pass true to get full upstream payloads (50KB-500KB) when you need to recompute deltas, cite specific observations, or post-process.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / examples
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "market_input": "will fed cut rates in june 2026"
-  },
-  {
-    "market_input": "https://polymarket.com/event/will-bitcoin-hit-150k-by-june-30-2026"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "market": "will-bitcoin-reach-100k-in-july-2026"
+  },
+  {
+    "market": "https://polymarket.com/event/will-bitcoin-hit-150k-by-june-30-2026"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations already indicating read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, the description adds extensive behavioral detail: low-confidence resolution short-circuit, closed-market handling, wide-spread tradeability flag, resolver contract, parent event extraction, news fallback mechanics, and resolution-rule risk. This far exceeds what annotations convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is excessively long and dense, with many details that could be summarized or structured as an output schema. While front-loaded with the main purpose, it then dives into extensive detail (response shapes, resolver contract, etc.) that makes it hard to parse quickly. Conciseness is sacrificed for completeness.

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?

The description is extremely comprehensive, covering input formats, output shape, edge cases (low confidence, closed markets, wide spreads), resolver behavior, parent events, news fallback, and resolution rule risk. Since there is no output schema, the description fully compensates by detailing response fields and behavior.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining how the 'market' parameter is interpreted (slug, URL, or question text) and includes examples in the schema. The extra context for 'depth' and 'include_raw' is already in the schema, but the description reinforces key details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it researches a Polymarket bet by pulling Pipeworx data, and specifies input formats (slug, URL, question text) and output (evidence packet + comparison). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like polymarket_edges or polymarket_arbitrage, leaving the agent to infer uniqueness.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Provides example use cases ('should I bet on X', 'what does the data say about Y', 'is there edge in Z'), giving clear context for when to use. However, it does not mention when NOT to use the tool or suggest alternatives (e.g., for single-source queries or other sibling tools), limiting its guidance.

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

All Ine Pt 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions. However, a few tools like 'discover_tools' and 'suggest_questions' both serve exploratory functions and could cause confusion. Similarly, 'ask_pipeworx' and 'deep_research' overlap in scope but are differentiated by depth and account requirements. Overall, an agent can typically pick the right tool, but a few pairs require careful reading.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case and are generally readable, but the convention varies: some are verb_noun (e.g., 'resolve_entity'), some are noun_noun (e.g., 'entity_profile'), and a few are just verbs (e.g., 'remember', 'forget'). The 'polymarket_' prefix helps group related tools, but the diversity in patterns slightly reduces predictability.

Tool Count4/5

With 32 tools, the set is slightly large but justified by the wide range of functionality: data querying, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and utilities. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, and the count is not excessive given the server's role as a gateway to thousands of data sources. It feels well-scoped for its domain.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers most essential operations: querying data, entity profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, memory, and onboarding. Minor gaps exist, such as the lack of a generic subscription for all data changes or a way to list all available data packs directly. However, 'discover_tools' partially addresses this. Overall, the surface is comprehensive for the server's purpose.

Resources