Skip to main content
Glama

Mfapi India

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: it walks the CLOB ladder, returns verifiable fill details (top_of_book, VWAP, slippage, verdict), and warns about thin legs and forced directional risk. No contradictions; description enriches beyond 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 detailed but structured: overall purpose, requirements, then separate sections for single-market and basket modes, followed by usage guidance. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy. Could be slightly more concise, but the complexity warrants the length.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully describes return fields for both modes (e.g., top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, verdict, thin_legs, forced_directional_risk). It also covers parameter behaviors and usage constraints, making it self-contained for an AI agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: explains automatic side selection for basket mode, describes size_usd as settlement notional for baskets, and clarifies defaults (side=buy_yes, size=1000). This reduces ambiguity beyond the schema's field-level 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 clearly states it performs a 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth,' specifying distinct modes (single-market vs basket) and return values. This differentiates it from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by focusing on fill feasibility 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?

Explicitly advises to use this tool before acting on polymarket_arbitrage signals or trades above ~$500, explaining why theoretical overround may not be capturable and that partial fills create directional risk. It provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance without ambiguity.

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

All Mfapi India 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose. The various `ask_pipeworx*` variants are differentiated by mode (single vs grounded vs research). `get_nav_history` vs `latest_nav` serve different query granularities. Administrative tools like `remember`/`recall`/`forget` are clearly separate. No two tools overlap in functionality.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case convention and generally use `verb_noun` order (e.g., `ask_pipeworx`, `search_schemes`, `validate_claim`). A few exceptions like `entity_profile` (noun_verb) exist, but the pattern is mostly predictable.

Tool Count3/5

At 34 tools, the server is quite large, including many specialized tools (e.g., multiple Polymarket tools, administrative memory/subscription tools) that could arguably be split into separate servers. The number feels slightly excessive for a coherent, focused server.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers an extraordinarily wide range of domains: company financials, SEC filings, FDA drugs, economic data, mutual funds, real estate, prediction markets, npm dependencies, AI visibility, and more. It also includes memory, subscription, and feedback mechanisms. There are no obvious gaps for the domains addressed.

Resources