Skip to main content
Glama

Mailchimp

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details: walks the order-book ladder, returns verdicts (clean|degraded|cannot_fill), per-leg fill details, and risks like thin_legs and 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is dense and well-structured with clear sections (REQUIRES, SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET). However, it is somewhat lengthy (over 200 words). Every sentence adds value, so it's concise in content but could be tightened.

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 (two modes, no output schema), the description covers all important aspects: return fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc.), verdicts, risk factors (thin legs, forced directional risk), and usage boundary conditions (size clamp 10–1,000,000). It is exceptionally complete.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant context: explains default side logic for baskets, clarifies size_usd semantics for each mode (spend vs proceeds vs settlement notional), and describes the interaction between parameters (e.g., single-market vs basket).

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 the tool's purpose: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It distinguishes two modes (single-market and basket) and references sibling tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges) to differentiate usage.

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.' It also warns against not using it: 'partial basket fills convert an arb into an unhedged directional position (the dominant loss mode).'

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

All Mailchimp 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

Several tools are near-duplicates: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, and discover_tools overlaps heavily with suggest_questions. The six Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, etc.) have fuzzy boundaries that will mislead an agent choosing among them.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are snake_case, but patterns vary: verb_noun (list_subscriptions, validate_claim), adjective_noun (recent_alerts, recent_changes), bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), and domain-prefixed tools (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_*, mailchimp_*). No camelCase mixing, but the inconsistency across styles makes prediction of names harder.

Tool Count1/5

The server is named Mailchimp but only 5 of 36 tools are Mailchimp-related; the remaining 31 tools cover unrelated domains (Pipeworx data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions). This extreme mismatch means the count is wildly inappropriate for the apparent purpose.

Completeness1/5

For a Mailchimp server, the surface is severely incomplete: only read operations exist (list/get audiences, campaigns, members) with no create, update, delete, send, or automation tools. The Pipeworx tools are comparatively rich but their presence does not fix the fact that the Mailchimp domain itself is a dead end.

Resources