Skip to main content
Glama

Jisho

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds extensive behavioral context: explains the semantic anchor (Jaccard similarity >= 0.30), partition filter (drops placeholder slugs), fill check (theoretical vs realizable edge, thin_legs[]), and response structure. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is fairly long but well-structured: first sentence states core purpose, then breaks into modes with clear headers ('SEMANTIC ANCHOR', 'PARTITION FILTER', 'FILL CHECK'). Every section adds value, though some details like the Jaccard similarity threshold could be more briefly stated. Overall, it earns its 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 and only two optional parameters, the description thoroughly explains the response structure (opportunities[] with fields like gap_pp, suggested_trade, reasoning), error handling (skipped_low_similarity, placeholders_filtered), and caveats (realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0 means don't trade). It also references a related tool for custom sizing, covering all necessary context.

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 for both event and topic. The description adds significant meaning beyond schema: provides examples (like 'fed-decision-may-2026' for event and 'Fed rate decision' for topic), explains the behavior difference between modes, and details how each parameter is used (e.g., event walks child markets, topic searches related events). This greatly aids correct invocation.

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 via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes between three modes: no args for trending scan, event for specific market, and topic for cross-event scanning. It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_fill_risk and polymarket_edges, making its purpose unique.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each mode: call with no args for trending scan, pass event for specific market (recommended for a specific event), pass topic for cross-event scanning (catches patterns single-event misses). It also advises against trading when realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0, giving clear usage boundaries.

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

All Jisho 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there are overlapping tools like the three ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence. A few pairs could cause confusion, but overall differentiation is moderate.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some are imperative verbs (remember, forget), some are compound nouns (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage), some are descriptive phrases (recent_alerts, scan_dependency). The verb_noun pattern is absent, leading to inconsistency.

Tool Count1/5

33 tools is far too many for a server named 'Jisho' (a Japanese dictionary), especially since only 2 tools (lookup, search_words) are dictionary-related. The majority of tools belong to an unrelated data platform, making the count wildly inappropriate for the server's apparent purpose.

Completeness3/5

For the dictionary domain, the server lacks common features like example sentences or kanji details. However, the extended tool set covers many data retrieval and analysis tasks, though it is read-heavy with no update/delete capabilities for most resources.

Resources