Skip to main content
Glama

Kitsu

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds rich behavioral context: the fill check against live CLOB depth, the >3pp threshold for signals, the semantic-anchor Jaccard filter, the partition placeholder filter, and the warning that realizable_edge_pp <= 0 means the edge is not tradable. This goes far beyond the annotations and fully discloses the tool's behavior.

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 long but densely packed with necessary information and clearly organized with labeled sections (SEMANTIC ANCHOR, PARTITION FILTER, FILL CHECK). The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence adds operational value. No filler or redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return values. It enumerates opportunities[], partition_check{}, fill check fields, and the meaning of realizable vs theoretical edge. It also covers edge cases like placeholder filtering and low-similarity pairs. For a tool of this complexity, the description is remarkably complete.

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% and the schema already describes event and topic, but the description adds substantial meaning: concrete slug examples, that full Polymarket URLs are accepted, what kind of seed question works for topic, and the deeper semantics of each mode. This elevates the parameter semantics 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 opening sentence explicitly states the tool's function: 'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks.' It distinguishes three distinct modes (trending_scan, event, topic) and names the specific resources, making its purpose unambiguous relative to sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_fill_risk.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Call with NO args for a trending_scan... pass event for... or topic for...' It recommends event for a specific market and topic for cross-event scanning, explains when cross-event mode is valuable, and directs users to polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing. This is a model of usage clarity.

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

All Kitsu 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer research questions, and the Kitsu-specific tools are mixed with unrelated Polymarket, memory, and utility tools. Despite detailed descriptions, the boundaries between many tools are unclear.

Naming Consistency2/5

The server mixes single-word nouns (anime, manga, categories), verb_noun pairs (search_anime, top_anime), verb phrases (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt), and domain-prefixed families (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) with no consistent overall convention. While some sub-families are internally consistent, the set as a whole lacks a predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is excessive for a server ostensibly about Kitsu anime/manga, with only 7 tools actually serving that domain. The rest are unrelated (Pipeworx research, Polymarket trading, memory, subscriptions), making the set bloated and unfocused for its stated purpose.

Completeness2/5

The Kitsu domain lacks common operations like filtered search, character/episode data, or user lists. Meanwhile, the Pipeworx/prediction-market tools form an arbitrary subset of their domains (e.g., no general Kalshi data, no SEC full-text search), so the overall surface is incomplete for any single purpose.

Resources