Skip to main content
Glama

launches

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?

The description goes far beyond the annotations (which already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive) by disclosing detailed behavioral traits: the 3pp deviation threshold, placeholder filtering logic, Jaccard similarity requirement, fill check against live CLOB depth, and the condition that realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0 signals a non-tradeable overround. This adds substantial context not inferable from 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 long but every sentence carries meaningful detail—modes, thresholds, filters, fill-check logic, and output shapes. It is structured in a logical flow, though it could benefit from clearer paragraph breaks or headers. It is not tautological or redundant, so it earns a solid score just below perfect.

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?

Given the tool's high complexity and lack of an output schema, the description compensates thoroughly by specifying the response structure (opportunities[], partition_check fields, fill_check details), explaining edge cases (placeholder filter, low similarity, thin legs), and referencing related tools. It leaves little ambiguity for an agent deciding when and how to invoke it.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning: it explains the formats and accepted inputs for 'event' (slug or full URL) and 'topic' (seed question), provides concrete examples, and clarifies how each parameter changes the tool's behavior (single-event vs cross-event scanning). This is a strong augmentation over the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 itself from siblings by outlining three distinct modes (trending_scan, event, topic) and references the output structure, making the purpose unambiguous and specific to this tool.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Call with NO args for a trending_scan', 'pass event for the strongest per-event partition_check', and 'topic for a themed cross-event scan'. It also names an alternative tool ('For custom sizing use polymarket_fill_risk') and explains when to choose each mode, including recommendations and a semantic anchor for cross-event mode.

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

All launches 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have significantly overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all perform data retrieval, with beta currently identical to stable. The polymarket_* family and bet_research also blur boundaries, and discover_tools vs suggest_questions both handle discovery. Despite detailed descriptions, agents are likely to misselect among these overlapping options.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools use snake_case, but conventions are mixed: some start with verbs (get_launch, search_launches, ask_pipeworx), others are noun phrases (entity_profile, pipeworx_trending), and there are versioned suffixes (ask_pipeworx_beta). While each domain group has internal consistency, the overall set lacks a unified pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a server named 'launches'—only 4 tools (get_launch, get_past_launches, get_upcoming_launches, search_launches) actually relate to space launches. The remaining 31 tools cover unrelated domains like prediction markets, company profiles, and memory, making the count inappropriate and diluting the server's focus.

Completeness2/5

For the claimed launch domain, the set provides only basic list/detail/search operations and lacks useful launch features like filtering by agency, date range, or launch site. More critically, the inclusion of 31 unrelated tools creates a fragmented surface with obvious dead ends—an agent expecting a launch-focused server would find most tools irrelevant.

Resources