Skip to main content
Glama

Metmuseum

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations indicating readOnlyHint=true and no destructive action, the description adds critical behavioral context: internal checks (date-axis/threshold-axis ordering, partition_sum, Jaccard similarity, placeholder filtering), the fill check against live CLOB depth, and explicit conditions for not trading (realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0). No contradiction with annotations.

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 long but well-structured, front-loaded with the purpose, then mode usage, then internal details. Every sentence adds value for a complex tool, though it could be slightly more concise. Still efficient for the depth of information.

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 fully explains the response format (opportunities[] with fields, partition_check in event mode) and covers key aspects like fill check, filters, and failure conditions. It leaves no significant gaps for an AI agent to understand usage and outcomes.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and already explains the parameters well (event slug, topic seed question). The main description adds behavioral details but not new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the method (monotonicity, partition checks) and mentions different modes (trending_scan, event, topic) that are not present in siblings like polymarket_edges or 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use each mode: 'Call with NO args for a trending_scan... pass event for... or topic for...' It recommends event for specific markets and explains cross-event advantages. It also tells when not to trade (fill check condition) and directs to polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing.

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

All Metmuseum 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The server mixes two Met-specific tools (get_artwork, search_artworks) with a large set of generic Pipeworx tools (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, etc.), making it unclear which tools actually relate to the Met museum. Agents will struggle to distinguish the domain-specific tools from the general data tools.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern: Met-specific tools use get_/search_/list_ prefixes, while Pipeworx tools use diverse patterns (ask_, bet_, compare_, discover_) and some use underscores while others lack verbs. The inconsistency increases cognitive load.

Tool Count3/5

At 29 tools, the count is high but not unreasonable for a combined server. However, only 3 tools are Met-specific, so the count feels inflated by unrelated tools. A more focused Met server would have fewer tools.

Completeness2/5

For a Met museum server, the tool surface is severely limited: only search, get by ID, and list departments. Missing operations like filtering by artist, retrieving related objects, or accessing collection highlights. The domain coverage is incomplete.

Resources