Skip to main content
Glama

Jira

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 indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false. Description aligns fully, characterizing the tool as a risk check with no side effects. Adds valuable context on real-world failure modes (thin books, unhedged risk) not evident from annotations alone.

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?

While the description is long, it is well-structured with clear headings for single-market and basket modes, and enumerates return fields and warnings. A minor improvement could be further condensing some explanations, but the density of useful information justifies the length.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully covers inputs, behavior, and outputs for both modes, including verdict categories, per-leg fill detail, and risk warnings (thin_legs, forced_directional_risk). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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: clarifies 'side' defaults and auto-detection for basket mode, explains 'size_usd' interpretation (spend vs proceeds for single-market; settlement notional for basket), and describes return fields in detail. This goes well beyond what the schema provides.

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 performs a 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth', specifying two distinct modes (single-market and basket). It directly differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by context and usage.

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 instructs to use this tool before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or polymarket_edges trade above ~$500. Also warns about risks of partial basket fills converting arb into unhedged positions, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to conditions.

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

All Jira 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

Tool purposes are largely distinct across domains (Jira, data queries, prediction markets), but there is overlap within domains, e.g., ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded and multiple Polymarket edge analysis tools.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes multiple conventions: jira_ prefix, pipeworx_ prefix, polymarket_ prefix, and plain verbs (remember, forget, recall). No consistent pattern across the entire set.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a server named 'Jira' which only has 4 Jira-specific tools. The majority are unrelated Pipeworx and Polymarket tools, making the scope bloated.

Completeness2/5

Jira-specific tools are incomplete (missing create, update, delete). While Pipeworx and Polymarket tools are comprehensive, they are out of place for a Jira server, leaving gaps in its stated purpose.

Resources