Skip to main content
Glama

Mempool Space

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false) are consistent with description. The description adds crucial behavior: it walks the CLOB ladder, computes slippage, and warns that partial basket fills convert arb into unhedged directional positions – the dominant loss mode. This exceeds annotation coverage.

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 verbose but well-structured with clear sections (REQUIRES, SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET, USE THIS). Every sentence adds value. A minor reduction in length could be possible, but the complexity of the tool justifies the detail.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates all return fields for both modes, explains edge cases (thin_legs, forced_directional_risk), and provides usage thresholds. For a risk-check tool with 4 params and no nested objects, this is comprehensive.

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 enriches all parameters: explains mode selection (market vs event), default side logic in basket mode (auto based on partition sum), and different size_usd interpretations (spend vs target proceeds vs settlement notional). This provides significant added meaning.

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 performs a realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live order-book depth. It distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, lists return fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, etc.), and explicitly ties usage to prior signals from polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges. This sets it apart from siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool ('USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'). It also warns against using after partial fills due to directional risk. While it doesn't list alternative tools, the context ('before acting on...') makes the usage scenario clear.

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

All Mempool Space 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set mixes two unrelated domains — Bitcoin mempool explorer tools and the much larger Pipeworx data-query platform — and within the Pipeworx half several tools route to the same 5,743-tool catalog (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions). ask_pipeworx_beta is currently an exact behavioral duplicate of ask_pipeworx, and the polymarket_* family has fuzzy boundaries (arbitrage vs edges vs fill_risk, with fill-checking living in both polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_fill_risk), so an agent must read long descriptions to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case and there are recognizable sub-families (get_* Bitcoin lookups, ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), but conventions are mixed across the whole set: bare-noun state tools (block_height, hashrate, mempool_stats, mining_pools) sit beside verb_noun actions (get_block, list_subscriptions), and prefix placement is inconsistent (ask_pipeworx vs pipeworx_trending/pipeworx_feedback). The naming is readable but not predictable enough to guess a tool's name from its function.

Tool Count2/5

41 tools is well past the 25+ threshold for a coherent server, and the count is inflated by bundling two unrelated products under a server named after only the smaller half (~10 Bitcoin tools vs ~31 Pipeworx tools). Many Pipeworx tools are convenience wrappers around one universal router, adding surface area without adding genuinely new capabilities.

Completeness3/5

Each half is internally workable: the Bitcoin side covers blocks, transactions, addresses, fees, hashrate, and pools, while the Pipeworx side provides broad query, research, subscription, and memory lifecycles. However, there are notable gaps relative to each domain (no block-list/fee-history endpoints on the explorer side; no direct per-source CRUD on the data side), and no single coherent domain is fully served because the server's stated identity matches only a fraction of its tools.

Resources