Skip to main content
Glama

Iso

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false, indicating a safe read operation. The description goes beyond by detailing the walking of the order-book ladder, the return fields (verdict, slippage, thin legs, forced_directional_risk), and the risk of partial fills. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is dense but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose then parameter requirements, mode-specific behavior, and return fields. Every sentence adds unique value without redundancy, achieving clarity in a single cohesive paragraph.

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 no output schema, the description fully enumerates return fields for both modes (e.g., top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, capture_ratio, thin_legs, forced_directional_risk). It also explains the verdict domain and the significance of each field, leaving no critical gaps in the tool's behavior or outputs.

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% with descriptions, but the tool description adds operational semantics: e.g., how size_usd is interpreted differently in single-market vs basket mode ('max spend on buys, target proceeds on sells' vs 'settlement notional — shares per leg'), and the auto-detection of side for baskets. This enriches the schema information.

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 it performs a 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth,' distinguishing between single-market and basket modes. It uses specific verbs and resources, and its purpose is distinct from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges.

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 tells the agent 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It explains when not to rely on theoretical overround and warns about partial basket fills leading to unhedged positions, providing clear context and exclusions.

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