Skip to main content
Glama

iplookup

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive. The description adds rich behavioral context: walks the ladder, returns specific fields like top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, verdict, and for basket mode per-leg detail, thin_legs, forced_directional_risk. Also warns about partial basket fills and strand risk, going well beyond the annotation safety profile. 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 long but information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose, then segregates single-market and basket modes, using uppercase keywords for required parameters and mode names. Each clause adds value, though it could benefit from bullet formatting for readability. It earns its length given the tool's complexity.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description fully covers what the tool returns in both modes, including edge cases like thin_legs and forced_directional_risk. It also explains the practical arb-bot context (loss mode from partial fills). This is a complete description for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning: market vs event modes, side defaults vary by mode, size_usd interpreted as spend/target proceeds for single-market and settlement notional for basket, including clamp range. This clarifies parameters beyond their schema 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 opens with a specific verb+object: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by naming polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges and explaining the fill-risk scenario. It details both single-market and basket modes, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 why (theoretical overround not capturable, partial fills convert arb into directional risk), giving clear context for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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

All iplookup 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool groups have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, polymarket_edges/arbitrage/bet_research overlap heavily, and scan_competitor_ai_presence merely wraps ai_visibility_check. An agent would frequently have to guess which of several overlapping tools to call.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use lowercase snake_case, but the set mixes verb-first names (resolve_entity, validate_claim) with noun/service-first compounds (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending, ai_visibility_check) and inconsistent suffix semantics (ask_pipeworx_beta vs ask_pipeworx_grounded). The pattern is readable but not predictable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is far too many for a server named iplookup; only 2 of 33 relate to IP geolocation. The rest form a sprawling data/prediction-market/memory platform that would be better split into multiple focused servers.

Completeness4/5

Within the actual described scope (a Pipeworx data platform), coverage is strong: routed lookups, grounded verification, deep research, entity identity/profile/comparison, claim validation, discovery, subscriptions, memory, feedback, trending, and a full prediction-market arbitrage suite. Minor gaps exist (no direct pack-listing tool, no update for memory values), but there are no critical dead ends.

Resources