Skip to main content
Glama

Jina Reader

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 indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructiveness. The description adds behavioral detail: it walks the order-book ladder, returns fill details (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, etc.), a verdict (clean|degraded|cannot_fill), and for baskets captures risks like forced_directional_risk. No contradiction with annotations; the description enriches understanding of the tool's operation.

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 fairly long but well-structured with capitalization for emphasis (REQUIRES, SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET) and clear separation of modes. Each sentence adds value, but some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'side' explanation). Overall it earns its length given tool 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?

Even without an output schema, the description lists all return fields for both modes (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, etc.), explains verdict categories, and highlights critical risks like forced_directional_risk. This provides a complete mental model of the tool's 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 description coverage is 100% (all 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds significant meaning: explains size_usd interpretation per mode (max spend vs target proceeds vs settlement notional), side defaults (auto for baskets based on partition sum), and the mutual exclusivity of market/event parameters. This goes well 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 it performs a realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth, with two distinct modes (single-market and basket). It differentiates from siblings by explicitly advising use before acting on polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_edges signals. The verb 'check' and resource 'CLOB order-book depth' are specific and 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?

The description explicitly states requirements (REQUIRES one of market or event) and provides clear usage context: use before acting on arbitrage or edge signals for trades above ~$500. It also warns about partial basket fills converting arbitrage into unhedged directional positions, which is critical for correct tool selection.

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

All Jina Reader 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and specialized tools like entity_profile or validate_claim that can answer similar questions. This creates ambiguity for an agent trying to select the correct tool.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern, with most using a verb_noun structure (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity). There are no mixed conventions or chaotic naming.

Tool Count3/5

With 31 tools, the server is on the heavy side. While each tool has a distinct purpose, the number is borderline for a coherent set and could be streamlined, especially given the overlapping functionality.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers a wide range of query and analysis tasks, including data lookup, comparison, betting research, memory, and subscriptions. However, there are notable gaps (e.g., no update/delete for most data, no user management) and some tools seem out of place (e.g., generate_llms_txt).

Resources