Skip to main content
Glama

Iso

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.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent tool. The description adds substantial behavioral context: monotonicity and partition checks, Jaccard similarity filters, placeholder filtering, fill check against live CLOB depth, and warning when an arbitrage signal is not tradeable. 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-structured and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value. A minor deduction for density, but conciseness is reasonable given the 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?

The description covers input options, processing details, edge cases (placeholders, similarity), output format, and references a sibling tool. Despite no output schema, the response structure is clearly explained.

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 significant meaning: it explains the purpose of each parameter, provides concrete examples (slugs, seed questions), and details the internal processing for each mode. This goes far beyond the schema.

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 finds arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket using monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes between three modes (trending scan, event, topic) and is distinct from 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?

The description explicitly specifies when to use each mode: no args for trending scan, 'event' for a specific market with examples, and 'topic' for cross-event scanning with a seed question. It also references polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing, providing clear alternatives.

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

All Iso 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Tools are mostly distinct but there is some overlap among lookup tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile) and among Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage). Agents might occasionally struggle to choose the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: some use verb_noun snake_case (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), some are single words (forget, recall, remember), and others are noun-based (compliance_catalog, entity_profile). No consistent pattern.

Tool Count1/5

With 34 tools, the count is too high for a server named 'ISO Standards'. The majority of tools are unrelated to ISO standards (e.g., Polymarket, memory, web scraping), making the scope highly inappropriate.

Completeness1/5

As an ISO standards server, the tool set is severely incomplete. Only 4-5 tools (search_standards, get_standard, compliance_catalog, open_data_files) actually deal with ISO standards. Essential operations like comparing standards or browsing revisions are missing.

Resources