Skip to main content
Glama

Newsdata

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: walks the ladder, returns specific fields (top_of_book, slippage, verdict), and details risks like thin legs and forced directional risk. 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 information-dense but somewhat lengthy. It uses structured sections (REQUIRES, SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET) which aid readability. Some sentences could be more concise, but overall it earns its length by providing necessary detail.

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, multiple return fields, risk warnings), the description is comprehensive. It explains both modes, return values in detail, and contextual risks. No output schema exists, so the description must cover return values, which it does thoroughly.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, providing baseline 3. The description adds usage context beyond schema, such as default size_usd=1000 and clamp 10-1,000,000, and explains the auto-detection of side in basket mode. While schema covers basics, description enriches with practical constraints.

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 explicitly states 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It clearly distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, detailing what each mode does and returns. The verb+resource are specific and distinct from siblings.

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, partial fills create directional risk), offering alternatives implicitly through sibling tool names.

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

All Newsdata 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have clearly distinct roles, and the extensive descriptions help differentiate intent, but the ask_pipeworx family—especially ask_pipeworx_beta, which is currently identical to ask_pipeworx—creates real ambiguity. Overlapping entry points like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim could also cause misselection without careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

All 34 tools use consistent snake_case, and clear verb-led or noun-prefixed patterns emerge across families like ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, and remember/recall/forget. Minor deviations such as ai_visibility_check and recent_changes being noun phrases rather than verb_noun constructions prevent a perfect score.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold for over-scoping, making the set heavy for an agent to navigate. While the server spans many domains, several tools like generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, and ai_visibility_check feel tangential to the core news/research purpose and would be better split into separate servers.

Completeness4/5

The core news/research domain is well covered: lookup, grounded verification, deep multi-source research, entity profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, and alert feeds are all present with no obvious dead ends. Minor gaps exist—such as no direct full-text article retrieval or a dedicated free-text news search beyond latest_news filters—but agents can work around them.

Resources