Skip to main content
Glama

Markdown

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description complements rather than repeats them. It discloses detailed behavior: 'walks the ladder', returns fields like 'top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp', and flags 'forced_directional_risk naming the legs most likely to strand you unhedged.' No annotation contradiction exists.

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 information-rich, front-loaded with the core purpose and using capital labels for modes. It is long, but every sentence contributes critical operational detail. A slightly more structured layout (bullets or headings) would improve scanability, yet there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain return values, and it does thoroughly: top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, verdict, capture_ratio, thin_legs[], max_clean_notional_usd, forced_directional_risk, and more. It also covers modes, defaults, clamps, and failure risks, making it complete for an agent to decide and execute correctly.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial semantics. It explains the REQUIRES one-of relationship between 'market' and 'event', mode-specific interpretation of 'side' (single vs basket with auto default), and the different meaning of 'size_usd' (spend vs target proceeds vs settlement notional). This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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 precise definition: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It names the specific resource (Polymarket CLOB) and action (fill-risk check), and clearly differentiates from siblings by positioning it as a pre-trade validation for polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges signals.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It not only names the exact sibling tools but explains why, including the risk of partial basket fills turning into unhedged directional positions. This is strong when-to-use guidance with alternatives implied.

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

All Markdown 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

Several tool clusters are hard to distinguish: the four ask_pipeworx variants overlap heavily (beta currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx, and grounded shares routing), and the half-dozen prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) have fuzzy boundaries. Memory and markdown utilities are clear, but the overlapping data-query and prediction-market clusters create real misselection risk.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are almost uniformly snake_case and mostly verb-first (ask_, compare_, extract_, scan_, validate_, remember, forget), which is predictable. Minor deviations like entity_profile, recent_changes, and polymarket_edges are noun-first but still follow the same lowercase_snake pattern, so no chaotic mixing of conventions exists.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy for a server seemingly named 'Markdown', especially when the majority are actually Pipeworx data-research and prediction-market tools. Several tools duplicate or wrap each other (ask_pipeworx_beta, scan_competitor_ai_presence, bet_research et al.), so the count feels bloated; it is not as extreme as 50+, but it exceeds a well-scoped set.

Completeness4/5

Within the actual dominant domain — structured data research plus prediction markets — the surface is broad: routing queries, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, resolution, claim validation, semantic search, discoverability, subscriptions/alerts, and memory are all covered. Minor gaps exist (e.g. no direct pipeworx:// citation-fetch tool, and markdown support is thin), but the core workflows have no dead ends.

Resources