Skip to main content
Glama

Macro Snapshot

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds behavioral context: it performs a check but warns about risks like partial basket fills converting arb into unhedged directional positions. 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Long but dense description with bold headers for REQUIRES, SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET. Every sentence is informative. Could be slightly more concise, but structure aids readability.

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 lists return fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc.) and covers both modes with defaults and risk warnings. Comprehensive for a complex 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%, so baseline 3. Description adds semantic meaning: explains single-market vs basket mode, default values, and how size_usd is interpreted (max spend on buys, target proceeds on sells for single-market; settlement notional for basket). Adds significant context.

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 it is a 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' and distinguishes between single-market and basket modes. It lists specific return fields and differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges.

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 tells when to use: before acting on polymarket_arbitrage signals or polymarket_edges trades above ~$500. Explains why: theoretical overround on thin books is not capturable, and partial basket fills lead to unhedged directional positions.

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

All Macro Snapshot 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several clusters overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer natural-language questions, and ai_visibility_check duplicates scan_competitor_ai_presence at a smaller scale. The detailed descriptions do separate most of these by routing, mode, or output, but the currently identical beta router and the broad ask/research family create real ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are all lowercase snake_case and there are coherent prefixes like polymarket_ and pipeworx_, but the set mixes imperative verb_noun names (list_subscriptions, validate_claim) with descriptive noun phrases (macro_snapshot, entity_profile, polymarket_edge_tracker) and bare verbs. The inconsistency is readable but not a single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold for a coherent server, and the set spans many unrelated domains: data routing, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, package scanning, and llms.txt generation. Even if each cluster has a purpose, the server is overloaded and several high-level wrappers could be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The main clusters are well covered: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/list/recent_alerts/unsubscribe, and company research has resolve_entity, entity_profile, recent_changes, and compare_entities. Minor gaps exist (no direct trade placement, no general web search, no account/profile management), but agents can complete most workflows without dead ends.

Resources