Skip to main content
Glama

Monday

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description extensively discloses behavior: how it walks the order book, what it returns (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc.), edge cases like partial fills converting an arb into unhedged directional risk, and the meaning of forced_directional_risk. This is a comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 every sentence is information-dense and necessary for a tool with two modes and multiple return fields. It is front-loaded with the core concept, though the extensive parentheticals and run-on sentences slightly reduce scannability. It earns its space but could be better structured with bullet points or clearer separation of modes.

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?

With no output schema, the description still lists all return fields for both modes, explains the verdict values (clean|degraded|cannot_fill), and highlights risk factors (thin_legs, forced_directional_risk). It also provides context on when to use the tool relative to other arbitrage tools, making it fully self-contained for an AI agent.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning by explaining how size_usd is interpreted differently in single-market vs basket modes (max spend vs settlement notional), the default side behavior in basket mode, and the requirement for one of market or event. It also clarifies clamp ranges and per-leg semantics, exceeding basic schema info.

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 identifies the tool as a fill-risk check against live CLOB order-book depth, with explicit modes (single-market and basket). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming specific use cases (polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges) and describing the unique value (realizable-vs-theoretical edge check).

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: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. It also explains when to use single-market vs basket mode, and warns about theoretical overround on thin books, making the intended context very clear.

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

All Monday 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

The set has several overlapping tool clusters. ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical in behavior, ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap heavily, and polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, and polymarket_fill_risk all target opportunity-finding/fill-checking on prediction markets. While individual descriptions are detailed, an agent could easily pick the wrong tool among these near-duplicates.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent across the surface. The monday_* and polymarket_* prefixes are consistent within their subgroups, and ask_pipeworx_* forms a family, but the rest mix verb_phrase (validate_claim, compare_entities, discover_tools), noun_phrase (entity_profile, recent_changes, suggest_questions), and bare verbs (remember, forget, recall) with no unifying pattern. This makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools, the surface is overloaded. The Monday.com integration alone only needs 5 tools, and the remaining 31 are a sprawling research/meta-toolkit. Many of these could be consolidated (e.g., ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta, or the several polymarket scanners), so the count feels inflated beyond what the server's core purpose requires.

Completeness3/5

The data-research and monitoring side is thorough, covering querying, grounding, comparison, profiling, entity resolution, subscriptions, memory, and feedback. However, the Monday.com integration is incomplete: it offers create/list/get/search for items but no update or delete operations, and no board creation or modification. This leaves the Monday workflow with dead ends.

Resources