Skip to main content
Glama

Mlb Stats

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds operational details: walks order book ladder, returns specific fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage, etc.), and explains basket behavior (theoretical_sum vs realizable_sum, thin_legs, forced directional risk). No contradiction with annotations. The description enriches transparency beyond the annotation safety profile.

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 clear sections (single-market, basket) and front-loaded with the core purpose. While it is lengthy, every sentence provides useful context for a complex tool. It could be slightly more concise, but it is well-organized and informative.

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 the tool's complexity (two modes, four parameters, no output schema), the description is exceptionally complete. It explains return values for both modes (e.g., top_of_book, vwap, verdict, capture_ratio, profit_usd, per-leg fill detail), addresses edge cases (thin_legs, forced_directional_risk), and provides practical usage notes. No essential information is missing.

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 contextual meaning: explains the default behavior for side in basket mode (auto based on partition sum) and clarifies the interpretation of size_usd for single-market vs basket. This adds value beyond the schema descriptions, justifying a 4.

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: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It differentiates between single-market and basket modes and explicitly links to sibling tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges) by advising to use this tool before acting on their signals, establishing distinct usage scope.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also explains why (theoretical overround not capturable on thin books, partial fills convert arb to directional risk) and clarifies parameter requirements ('REQUIRES one of market or event').

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

All Mlb Stats 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Severe overlap between entry points: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, and the prediction-market cluster (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk) has fuzzy boundaries that would confuse an agent picking one. Entity lookups (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, validate_claim) also overlap on company data. The stakes are raised by the server being named 'Mlb Stats' while most tools are unrelated general-data tools, compounding misselection risk.

Naming Consistency2/5

There is internal consistency within families — the 7 MLB tools share a clean get_ prefix, and the Poly tools share a polymarket_ prefix — but the overall set mixes bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), prefixed families (ask_pipeworx_*), and descriptive compounds (ai_visibility_check, generate_llms_txt) with no unifying convention. The 'Mlb Stats' server name bears no relation to the dominant ask_pipeworx/deep_research naming, which further breaks pattern expectations.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is well past the heavy threshold, and more importantly the bulk of them (SEC filings, FRED economics, Polymarket arbitrage, npm scanning, AI visibility, subscriptions) have nothing to do with the server's stated MLB purpose. Only 7 of 38 tools are actually baseball-related, so the count is both too high for the labeled scope and misallocated.

Completeness3/5

The 7 MLB tools cover teams, rosters, schedule/scores, standings, player profiles, season stats, and batter-vs-pitcher history — a solid read-only core. However, obvious gaps remain: no per-game box scores, no league leaders, no team offensive/pitching stats, no live game detail beyond final scores. The Pipeworx catch-all router technically fills data gaps but leaves the MLB-specific surface incomplete.

Resources