Skip to main content
Glama

Met No

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Polymarket Arbitrage

polymarket_arbitrage
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks. Call with NO args for a trending_scan of the top ~200 markets by weekly volume; pass event for the strongest per-event partition_check, or topic for a themed cross-event scan. event (recommended for a specific market): pass a Polymarket event slug like "fed-decision-may-2026" or "when-will-bitcoin-hit-150k"; walks child markets, checks date-axis / threshold-axis ordering AND computes the partition_check (sum of YES prices across mutually-exclusive legs — should ≈1; deviations >3pp emit a BUY/SELL EVERY LEG signal). topic (for cross-event scanning): pass a seed question like "Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal" or "Fed rate decision"; searches related events across the platform, flattens markets, runs the comparator on the union. Cross-event mode catches "...by May 31" vs "...by Jun 30" patterns that single-event misses. SEMANTIC ANCHOR: cross-event pairs require ≥0.30 Jaccard similarity on question tokens (prevents Powell-Fed-Pause being paired with Powell-DOJ-probe); skipped_low_similarity surfaces the rejected pair count. PARTITION FILTER: drops will-person-X / will-manager-Y / will-someone-else- placeholder slugs; partitions with >20% placeholder fraction return null arb signal. Response: opportunities[] (gap_pp, suggested_trade, reasoning, monotonicity violation context), and in event mode partition_check{sum_yes_prices, gap_from_1, placeholders_filtered, suggested_trade}. FILL CHECK: when the partition signal fires, arbitrage.fill_check prices it against live CLOB depth (theoretical_edge_pp_at_book vs realizable_edge_pp at 1000 shares/leg, thin_legs[]) — realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0 means the overround exists only at last-trade, not in the book; do not trade it. For custom sizing use polymarket_fill_risk.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eventNoSingle-event mode (use this if you know the specific Polymarket event): event slug like "fed-decision-may-2026" or "when-will-bitcoin-hit-150k". Full Polymarket URLs also accepted.
topicNoCross-event mode (use this if you want to scan related events across the platform): a topic or seed question like "Fed rate decision" or "Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal". Tool searches Polymarket for related events and checks monotonicity across them.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the >3pp deviation threshold for signal emission, the >20% placeholder fraction that returns null, and the fill-check behavior that realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0 means 'do not trade it.' These are critical behavioral nuances not in any structured field.

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 longer than average but efficiently organized with bolded mode headers such as SEMANTIC ANCHOR, PARTITION FILTER, and FILL CHECK. It front-loads the purpose and usage before diving into details, and every sentence adds unique information, though the density of technical callouts makes it less concise than a two-sentence tool.

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?

In the absence of an output schema, the description specifies the response shape: opportunities[] with gap_pp, suggested_trade, reasoning, monotonicity context, plus partition_check fields in event mode. It covers all three invocation modes, edge cases like thin legs, and delegation to polymarket_fill_risk, making it fully self-contained.

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?

Both schema descriptions are dense, but the description adds concrete slug examples ('fed-decision-may-2026') and explains internal logic for each parameter: event walks child markets and checks ordering, topic flattens a union and applies Jaccard similarity. This transforms the parameters from simple strings into behaviorally rich inputs.

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 opening sentence 'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks' clearly specifies the verb, resource, and method. It further differentiates three call modes (trending_scan, event, topic) that map to distinct use cases, distinguishing it from siblings like polymarket_edges and polymarket_fill_risk.

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?

It directly instructs: 'Call with NO args for a trending_scan... pass event for the strongest per-event partition_check, or topic for a themed cross-event scan.' It notes cross-event catches patterns single-event misses, and for custom sizing 'use polymarket_fill_risk', explicitly naming the alternative tool.

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

All Met No 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among closely related ones (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research; multiple Polymarket tools). Descriptions are detailed enough to differentiate, but an agent might still misselect on subtle differences.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names consistently use lowercase with underscores, but no strong verb_noun pattern. Some are noun-based (airquality, nowcast), others verb-based (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities). This is readable but not perfectly predictable.

Tool Count4/5

35 tools is high but justified by the server's broad scope (data queries, betting analysis, weather, memory, subscriptions). The number feels appropriate given the comprehensive functionality described.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers an impressively wide range of capabilities: data querying with multiple modes, entity profiling, comparisons, search, betting analysis, weather, memory, subscriptions, and feedback. Missing features (e.g., updating memories) are minor; the surface is remarkably complete.

Resources