Skip to main content
Glama

Lemmy

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Bet Research

bet_research
Read-onlyIdempotent

Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call. Pass a market slug ("will-bitcoin-hit-150k-by-june-30-2026"), a polymarket.com URL, or a question text. The tool resolves the market, classifies the bet, fans out to category-specific data packs in parallel, and returns an evidence packet + simple market-vs-model comparison. Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z". CLASSIFIERS: crypto_price, fed_rate, geopolitical, sports, sports_championship, drug_approval, election_candidate, tech_launch, space_launch, corporate, corporate_earnings, corporate_event, public_figure_speech, weather, other. FAN-OUT EXAMPLES: BTC bet → coingecko + fred + gdelt+gnews; Fed bet → fred (DFEDTARU + EFFR + CPIAUCSL) + kalshi_macro (KXFED implied probs) + recent_fed_actions (federal-register rules, last 365d); Hormuz bet → imf_portwatch + airspace + gdelt; Yankees WS → mlb_stats_standings + parent_event partition + news; hottest-year bet → climate_projection_nyc + gistemp_latest (NASA global anomaly, rank since 1880) + news; NVDA-vs-AAPL → finnhub get_quote + edgar shares-outstanding (derived market cap) + edgar filings + news. RESPONSE SHAPES: result.market carries best_bid/best_ask/spread_pp/liquidity/price_change_1h/1d/1w; result.analysis carries model_probability/edge_pp/kelly_fraction_half when a closed-form model fires PLUS a 24h-move warning ("Market moved X.Xpp in 24h, comparable to model edge — your edge may already be priced in") when relevant; result.evidence is keyed by source. RESOLVER CONTRACT: result.market_match_confidence ∈ {high, medium, low, none}, market_match_score (0-1 token-overlap), market_match_alternatives[] (other candidate markets the resolver considered), and suggestions[] (explicit re-query hints when the match is fuzzy) — ALWAYS inspect these before trusting the analysis block, because medium/low matches can still surface other fields. PARENT_EVENT EXTRACTOR: when the bet is one leg of a partition (Yankees WS, Romania election), result.parent_event{matched_candidate, top_legs_by_price[], partition_size, placeholders_filtered} gives you the peer prices in one place — that's the headline for elections/championships. NEWS FIELDS: news entries carry _fallback_attempted / _fallback_failed_reason / retry_after_sec when GDELT 429s and GNews backfill ran or failed. SAFETY: low-confidence resolutions short-circuit with status:"low_confidence_match" and suppress analysis fields so agents can't accidentally size on phantom matches. Closed/dead markets that ARE still indexed by Polymarket (yes_price≈0, no volume, no liquidity) return status:"market_closed_or_inactive" and skip fan-out. In practice resolved markets are usually de-indexed and instead surface via the low_confidence_match path above — both routes are BLOCKING, just different mechanisms. Wide-spread markets (>10pp) carry tradeability:"illiquid_wide_spread" + an explanatory note. RESOLUTION-RULE RISK: market.cancellation_rule parses the void/postponement settlement out of the resolution text — refund_50_50 (shares settle flat 50¢ on void; EV-material for any entry away from 50¢, with ev_impact quantified), resolves_no_on_cancel, resolves_yes_on_cancel, carries_to_reschedule, or mentioned_unclear. null means the description never mentions cancellation. Check this before sizing sports/esports/event-occurrence bets — audited arb-bot ledgers show flat-50¢ void settlements are a recurring pure-rules loss.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthNoquick = 2-3 evidence sources, thorough = full fan-out. Default thorough.
marketYesPolymarket slug ("will-bitcoin-hit-150k-by-june-30-2026"), full URL ("https://polymarket.com/event/..."), or question text ("Will Bitcoin hit $150k by June 30?")
include_rawNoDefault false. When false (recommended), FRED/FDA/GDELT/Federal-Register evidence is summarized to the few fields agents actually use — keeps responses under ~20KB. Pass true to get full upstream payloads (50KB-500KB) when you need to recompute deltas, cite specific observations, or post-process.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / examples
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "market_input": "will fed cut rates in june 2026"
-  },
-  {
-    "market_input": "https://polymarket.com/event/will-bitcoin-hit-150k-by-june-30-2026"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "market": "will-bitcoin-reach-100k-in-july-2026"
+  },
+  {
+    "market": "https://polymarket.com/event/will-bitcoin-hit-150k-by-june-30-2026"
+  }
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "market_input": "will fed cut rates in june 2026"
+  },
+  {
+    "market_input": "https://polymarket.com/event/will-bitcoin-hit-150k-by-june-30-2026"
+  }
+]
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / include_raw
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Default false. When false (recommended), FRED/FDA/GDELT/Federal-Register evidence is summarized to the few fields agents actually use — keeps responses under ~20KB. Pass true to get full upstream payloads (50KB-500KB) when you need to recompute deltas, cite specific observations, or post-process.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even with strong annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description adds substantial behavioral context: parallel fan-out, resolver contract with confidence levels, safety short-circuit on low confidence, closed-market statuses, illiquid wide-spread flags, and cancellation-rule parsing. This far exceeds the annotations and gives agents crucial expectations about edge cases and return semantics.

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 well-structured with uppercase section labels (CLASSIFIERS, FAN-OUT EXAMPLES, RESPONSE SHAPES, RESOLVER CONTRACT, SAFETY) and front-loaded purpose. However, it is quite long and contains many examples and edge-case details that, while useful, could be trimmed or moved to an output schema. It earns a 4 for clear organization but loses a point for verbosity.

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 complexity (classification, parallel fan-out, resolver disambiguation, safety mechanisms) and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers response shapes, resolver contract, parent-event extraction, news fallback fields, statuses for low-confidence and closed markets, spread warnings, and cancellation-rule risk—all essential for correct use.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not significantly add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides (market input formats, depth options, include_raw toggle). The fan-out examples partly illustrate output behavior but don't enrich parameter meaning enough to justify a higher score.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_edges by framing the tool as the general-purpose bet research entry point and giving explicit user intents ('should I bet on X', 'what does the data say about Y').

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit use cases ('Use for should I bet...') and detailed fan-out examples showing when to invoke. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives like ask_pipeworx or deep_research, so it lacks the full when-not/alternatives contrast needed for a 5.

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

All Lemmy 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer factual questions, while bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and polymarket_fill_risk all analyze prediction markets. The Lemmy tools are distinct from the Pipeworx tools, but within each cluster an agent could easily select the wrong tool despite lengthy descriptions.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: single nouns (post, community, site), verb_noun patterns (list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt), and ad-hoc names (ask_pipeworx, forget, recall). There is no consistent verb_noun or noun-only pattern across the set, making it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is excessive for a server named 'Lemmy' where only 7 tools (comments, communities, community, post, posts, search, site) actually relate to Lemmy. The vast majority of tools belong to an unrelated Pipeworx data platform, creating a severe scope mismatch and making the server feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

For the Lemmy domain, the tools cover read-only browsing (list posts, view post, list communities, fetch community, comments, search, site metadata) but completely lack write operations like posting, commenting, voting, or moderation. The Pipeworx tools are extensive but do not compensate for the primary domain's gaps since the server is ostensibly about Lemmy.

Resources