Skip to main content
Glama

Mediastack

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?

Despite annotations already providing readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive flags, the description adds extensive behavioral context: it walks the order book ladder, returns top-of-book and VWAP fills, slippage, and warns about forced directional risk. Since no output schema exists, the description fully compensates.

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 bold headers for modes, but it is verbose with repeated warnings about partial fills and directional risk. It could be slightly more concise without losing clarity, but the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly documents all return fields for both modes, covers edge cases (thin legs, clamping), and explains the dominant loss mode (unhedged directional position). It is fully complete for evaluating tool suitability.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the dual meaning of 'side' (single-market vs basket auto-detection), the different interpretation of 'size_usd' between modes, and the requirement for exactly one of 'market' or 'event'.

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 verb (fill risk check) and resource (live CLOB order-book depth), distinguishing between single-market and basket modes. It is specific and contrasts with sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by focusing on capturability rather than signal generation.

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?

The description explicitly says 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. It explains the risk of partial fills converting arb to directional positions, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All Mediastack 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a detailed description clarifying its precise purpose, and even closely related tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded) are clearly differentiated by behavior and use case. No two tools appear to serve the same function.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the structural pattern is inconsistent: many follow verb_noun (compare_entities, resolve_entity), while others are noun-based (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage) or single verbs (subscribe, remember). This mix reduces predictability.

Tool Count3/5

With 32 tools, the server is quite large for an MCP server. While many tools are justified by the broad domain coverage, the high number can overwhelm agents and increase cognitive load, making it feel somewhat bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of domains (company data, prediction markets, news, memory, subscriptions, etc.), and the generic ask_pipeworx and deep_research tools gateways to thousands of data sources, effectively filling gaps. However, some areas lack dedicated tools (e.g., weather, real estate) beyond the generic query.

Resources