Skip to main content
Glama

Mychem

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?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial context: walks the order book ladder, returns detailed fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc.), and highlights risks like forced_directional_risk. No contradictions.

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 all sentences add value, explaining modes, defaults, and risks. It is front-loaded with core requirements and purpose. Could be slightly more concise, but the length is justified given complexity.

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 complexity (two modes, four parameters, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: input requirements, behavior for each mode, output fields, and risk warnings. It is fully self-contained for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning: explains side defaults (auto for basket based on partition sum), size_usd interpretation (max spend, target proceeds, settlement notional), and clarifies which parameter (market vs event) determines the mode.

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 performs a realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth, distinguishing it from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges. It specifies two modes (single-market and basket) and what each does.

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 when to use the tool: before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500. Also warns about risks of partial basket fills converting arb into unhedged directional positions.

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

All Mychem 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
Disambiguation2/5

The set contains several near-duplicate entry points (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) plus a dense family of polymarket_* and chemical lookup tools whose boundaries are subtle. An agent can easily pick the wrong router variant, edge-scanning tool, or chemical search tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Snake_case is used throughout, but naming style is mixed: some tools are verb-first (query, resolve_entity, validate_claim), some are noun/domain-first (entity_profile, recent_changes, polymarket_arbitrage), and the ask_pipeworx variants use suffixes instead of a consistent verb pattern. It is readable, but there is no predictable convention beyond snake_case.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well past the comfortable range, and the count is especially hard to justify because they span unrelated domains: chemistry lookups, a Pipeworx data gateway, prediction-market analytics, memory, subscriptions, AI-visibility checks, and npm dependency scanning. Many of these have no obvious connection to the 'Mychem' name or to each other.

Completeness4/5

Within each contained workflow the surface is fairly complete: chemistry has search/fetch/metadata, Pipeworx has lookup/research/discovery/validation, subscriptions and memory both have lifecycle coverage, and the Polymarket family covers research, edge detection, persistence, and fill risk. Some minor gaps exist (no general web retrieval or execution/trading action), but agents can work around them.

Resources