Skip to main content
Glama

Jisho

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds behavioral context: it walks the order book ladder, returns verdicts (clean|degraded|cannot_fill), and explains basket-mode risks like thin_legs and forced_directional_risk. No contradictions 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 a single dense paragraph but well-structured with clear section headings (SINGLE-MARKET:, BASKET:). It front-loads the purpose and requirements. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description fully explains return values: for single-market (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, max_fillable_usd, verdict) and for basket (theoretical_sum, realizable_sum, capture_ratio, profit_usd, per-leg detail, thin_legs, max_clean_notional_usd, forced_directional_risk). Also explains the logic behind each.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds meaningful context beyond schema: explains the difference between single-market and basket modes, default values for side and size_usd, and how size_usd is interpreted differently depending on mode. This enriches agent understanding.

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 checks realizable vs theoretical edge against live order-book depth. It specifies two modes (single-market and basket) and outputs for each. It distinguishes itself from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by being a risk check before acting on their signals.

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 when to use: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' Also explains when not to rely on theoretical overround and warns about partial basket fills converting arb into directional positions.

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