Skip to main content
Glama

Ipma Pt

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Polymarket Arbitrage

polymarket_arbitrage
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks. Call with NO args for a trending_scan of the top ~200 markets by weekly volume; pass event for the strongest per-event partition_check, or topic for a themed cross-event scan. event (recommended for a specific market): pass a Polymarket event slug like "fed-decision-may-2026" or "when-will-bitcoin-hit-150k"; walks child markets, checks date-axis / threshold-axis ordering AND computes the partition_check (sum of YES prices across mutually-exclusive legs — should ≈1; deviations >3pp emit a BUY/SELL EVERY LEG signal). topic (for cross-event scanning): pass a seed question like "Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal" or "Fed rate decision"; searches related events across the platform, flattens markets, runs the comparator on the union. Cross-event mode catches "...by May 31" vs "...by Jun 30" patterns that single-event misses. SEMANTIC ANCHOR: cross-event pairs require ≥0.30 Jaccard similarity on question tokens (prevents Powell-Fed-Pause being paired with Powell-DOJ-probe); skipped_low_similarity surfaces the rejected pair count. PARTITION FILTER: drops will-person-X / will-manager-Y / will-someone-else- placeholder slugs; partitions with >20% placeholder fraction return null arb signal. Response: opportunities[] (gap_pp, suggested_trade, reasoning, monotonicity violation context), and in event mode partition_check{sum_yes_prices, gap_from_1, placeholders_filtered, suggested_trade}. FILL CHECK: when the partition signal fires, arbitrage.fill_check prices it against live CLOB depth (theoretical_edge_pp_at_book vs realizable_edge_pp at 1000 shares/leg, thin_legs[]) — realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0 means the overround exists only at last-trade, not in the book; do not trade it. For custom sizing use polymarket_fill_risk.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eventNoSingle-event mode (use this if you know the specific Polymarket event): event slug like "fed-decision-may-2026" or "when-will-bitcoin-hit-150k". Full Polymarket URLs also accepted.
topicNoCross-event mode (use this if you want to scan related events across the platform): a topic or seed question like "Fed rate decision" or "Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal". Tool searches Polymarket for related events and checks monotonicity across them.

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 already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds substantial context: details on monotonicity checks, partition validation, semantic anchor (Jaccard threshold), partition filter (placeholder slugs), fill check with specific thresholds (realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0), and response structure. 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 well-organized: starts with core purpose, then parameter details, then behavior, then response structure. Every sentence adds value. Slight verbosity in middle sections but acceptable given 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 two parameters, no output schema, but the description fully explains the output (opportunities array, partition_check object, fill check results). It covers edge cases (low similarity, placeholder filtering, fill check warnings). For a complex arbitrage tool, this is complete.

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 dramatically expands meaning: explains the purpose of each parameter, expected formats (slugs, URLs), the behavior of each mode, and the interaction between parameters (e.g., event recommended for specific market). Goes well beyond the 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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks.' It clearly distinguishes between two modes (event and topic) and contrasts with sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_fill_risk.

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?

Explicit guidance: call with no args for trending scan, pass event for a specific market, or topic for cross-event scanning. It gives examples of slugs and warns when not to trade based on fill check results, and references polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing.

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

All Ipma 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The ask_pipeworx / ask_pipeworx_beta / ask_pipeworx_grounded / deep_research cluster overlaps heavily on question-routing, and the six polymarket_* tools all operate on prediction-market edges and can be confused. The ipma_*, memory, and subscription tools are distinct, but the overlapping clusters create real misselection risk.

Naming Consistency3/5

Snake_case is used throughout and there are clear prefix groups (ipma_*, ask_pipeworx, polymarket_*), but the rest mix verb-first (compare_entities, discover_tools), noun-first (entity_profile, bet_research), and bare verbs (remember, recall, forget). Readable overall, but no consistent verb_noun convention.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is heavy, and the server name 'Ipma Pt' implies a narrow Portugal-weather service while 31 of the tools belong to a broad Pipeworx data/prediction-market platform. The scope mismatch makes the count feel bloated rather than curated.

Completeness4/5

The dominant Pipeworx domain is well covered: querying, grounded answers, deep research, entity resolution, comparison, claim validation, subscriptions, memory, and tool discovery are all present with few dead ends. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no general web search tool, thin IPMA historical/warning coverage), but agents can work around them.

Resources