Skip to main content
Glama

Law Feeds

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 already mark it as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds rich behavioral context: walking the ladder, returning fill prices, slippage, thin legs, forced directional risk. No contradictions.

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?

Despite length, description is well-structured with clear headings for modes, default behaviors, and return fields. Every sentence is informative and earns its place. Front-loaded with purpose.

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, but description comprehensively covers return values for both modes, including edge cases like thin legs and forced directional risk. Complete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, but description adds significant extra meaning: explains size_usd interpretation per mode, side auto-detection in basket mode, etc. Adds value beyond 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?

Clearly states the tool performs a realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth, with explicit modes (single-market and basket). Distinguishes itself from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by specifying when to use it.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' Explains why (theoretical overround not capturable, partial basket fills convert arb into directional risk). No ambiguity.

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

All Law Feeds 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
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tool families overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded all route through the same 5,721 tools, polymarket_edges/polymarket_arbitrage/bet_research/polymarket_fill_risk all target prediction-market opportunities, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence cover the same probe. An agent would struggle to pick the right one without reading every description carefully.

Naming Consistency3/5

There are coherent subfamilies (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, remember/recall/forget, list/read/fetch_feed), but the overall set mixes verb-first names (list_feeds, validate_claim, fetch_feed) with noun-first names (entity_profile, bet_research, deep_research) and adjective-led names (recent_alerts, recent_changes). The inconsistency is noticeable but not chaotic.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy for a server branded 'Law Feeds,' and many tools are off-domain (Polymarket betting, npm dependency scanning, AI visibility marketing, generic memory). The breadth could justify a larger catalog, but the overlapping research/Polymarket tools inflate the count beyond what the surface needs.

Completeness3/5

As a general data-gateway, the set is fairly complete: routing, grounded answers, deep research, entity resolution, comparison, subscriptions, memory, and feedback are all covered. Relative to the 'Law Feeds' identity, though, the surface is shallow — only list_feeds, read_feed, and fetch_feed serve that purpose, with no feed search, management, or update capabilities.

Resources