Skip to main content
Glama

Intact

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent. The description adds critical behavioral context: partial basket fills convert arb into unhedged directional position (dominant loss mode), and clarifies the tool walks the order book ladder. 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 long but structured with capitalized mode markers and lists return fields for each mode. Every sentence adds value, though a slightly shorter version might be achievable without losing information. Still, it's well-organized and front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description enumerates all return fields for both modes (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc.) and explains the risk of unhedged positions. It provides complete context for the tool's behavior and output.

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 meaning beyond the schema: it explains default values (size_usd=1000, side defaults), interpretation differences between single-market and basket modes, and what returns are produced. This significantly aids correct parameter selection.

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 explicitly states it performs a 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' and clearly distinguishes between single-market and basket modes. It names the specific resource and action, and the distinction from siblings is evident.

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 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500' and explains why (theoretical overround not capturable, partial fills cause directional risk). This provides clear when-to-use and risk context.

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

All Intact 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have strong, detailed descriptions with explicit usage guidance, but a few clusters are genuinely ambiguous: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently an exact duplicate of ask_pipeworx, and the Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker) overlap heavily in purpose. The descriptions help differentiate them, but an agent could still easily select the wrong variant.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names are snake_case and most follow an imperative verb-first pattern such as resolve_entity, subscribe, or validate_claim. A few noun-style names like entity_profile, bet_research, and interaction_count deviate, but the consistent underscore style and clear prefixes like polymarket_ and pipeworx_ keep the set predictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 top-level tools, the surface is heavy, and several tools are near-duplicates or narrow variants of the same core capability. The broad scope explains some of the count, but the agent-facing API would be cleaner with fewer, more consolidated entry points.

Completeness5/5

The set provides strong lifecycle coverage for its main workflows: querying and grounding, deep research, entity resolution, company profiling, comparisons, Polymarket edge analysis with fill-risk checks, memory storage, and subscription management. There are no obvious dead ends that would prevent an agent from completing a typical task.

Resources