Skip to main content
Glama

Legislation Uk

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details like walking the order-book ladder, returning verdicts, and listing thin legs and forced directional risk. It enriches the safety profile without contradiction.

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 well-structured: it front-loads the purpose, then uses labeled sections for SINGLE-MARKET and BASKET modes. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, but some internal repetition could be trimmed.

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 complexity of the tool (two modes, many return fields, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: input modes, parameters with defaults, returned fields per mode, error cases, and usage warnings. It fully equips an agent to decide when and how to call the tool.

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 good descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra context such as default auto logic for side, clamp range for size_usd, and explains basket settlement notional as 'shares per leg'. This goes 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 description clearly states 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth', specifies two distinct modes (single-market and basket), and lists returned fields. It differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage by being a pre-trade risk check.

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 states 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 why partial fills convert arb into directional risk, providing clear context.

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

All Legislation Uk 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

The legislation-specific tools are distinct, but the server bundles dozens of unrelated Pipeworx/prediction-market/AI-visibility tools, making the set's purpose unclear. Several near-identical pairs exist: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, and ai_visibility_check overlaps heavily with scan_competitor_ai_presence. An agent would struggle to know which tool is the right entry point.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is mixed: snake_case dominates, but camelCase appears in ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, generate_llms_txt, and pipeworx_feedback. There is also inconsistency in verb style — get_/search_/list_ coexist with bare verbs like remember, recall, forget, and subscribe. The legislation tools themselves follow a clean get_legislation* pattern, but the wider set does not.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is too many for a server named 'Legislation Uk' where only 4 tools actually relate to UK legislation. The remaining 31 tools appear to belong to a broader data/prediction-market platform, which suggests severe scope creep or a mislabeled assembly. This bloats the surface area and makes the server harder for an agent to navigate.

Completeness4/5

For the stated UK-legislation purpose, the core read-and-search workflow is covered: search_legislation, get_legislation, get_legislation_section, and get_legislation_text together support discovery, metadata, targeted section lookup, and full-text retrieval with version selection. Obvious gaps remain, such as full-text content search and amendment/change history, but agents can complete the primary task of finding and reading legislation. The unrelated tools neither help nor complete this domain.

Resources