Skip to main content
Glama

Lobsters

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.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds critical behavioral details: forced_directional_risk in basket mode, clamping of size_usd, and the risk of partial fills. No contradictions with 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?

Description is fairly long but well-structured with clear sections: purpose, mode explanations, usage guidance. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. Could be slightly tighter but effective.

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?

Tool is complex with two modes and many return fields. Since no output schema exists, description must cover returns. It does: lists all returned values for both modes, explains risk mechanisms, and provides usage thresholds. Complete for the complexity level.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds semantic value by explaining mode selection (market vs event), meaning of size_usd per mode, and default side logic for baskets. These details enhance understanding 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?

Description clearly states the tool checks realizable vs theoretical edge using live order book depth, and distinguishes two modes (single-market and basket). It is not a tautology and differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage.

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 advises to use this tool before acting on polymarket_arbitrage signals or polymarket_edges trades above ~$500. Explains the risk of partial basket fills converting arb into unhedged directional positions, providing clear when-to-use context.

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

All Lobsters 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., three tools for querying Pipeworx data (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research), and six tools for Polymarket prediction markets. The boundaries between them are unclear, causing potential for misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are all snake_case but follow inconsistent patterns: some use verb_noun (get_hottest, get_newest), some are single verbs (remember, forget), and others are noun_noun (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage). While readable, the lack of a consistent pattern adds confusion.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the server is overloaded, especially given its name 'Lobsters' suggests a focus on that site, yet only 4 tools are Lobsters-related. The majority belong to Pipeworx, Polymarket, and generic utilities, making the scope extremely broad and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

For the implied domain of Lobsters, the tool set is incomplete (missing create/update/delete). For the broader domains (Pipeworx, Polymarket), the set is extensive but doesn't align with the server's name. The lack of a coherent domain leaves obvious gaps relative to any single purpose.

Resources