Skip to main content
Glama

Nist Standards

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint = false) are consistent and non-contradictory. The description adds significant behavioral context: it details the walking of the order book ladder, the required parameter constraint, specific return fields, and explains forced directional risk, which goes beyond the 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 well-structured with bolded mode names and outputs, front-loading the purpose. It is efficient, though slightly lengthy; each sentence adds value. Minor improvement could be trimming redundant phrasing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return fields for both modes, use cases, and risks (e.g., partial basket fills leading to directional exposure). It is nearly complete but could mention error handling or parameter validation.

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%, setting baseline at 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of size_usd in basket mode ('settlement notional — shares per leg'), clarifying side defaults (auto for basket), and giving examples. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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' and distinguishes between single-market and basket modes with specific outputs. It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by saying 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: before acting on arbitrage signals or trades above $500. It explains why it's necessary (theoretical edge not capturable on thin books, partial fills cause directional risk) but does not explicitly state when not to use it, though it is implied for smaller trades.

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

All Nist Standards 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 distinct purposes, but several clusters overlap: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges both surface arbitrage opportunities, and validate_claim overlaps with ask_pipeworx_grounded. Descriptions mitigate some confusion, but selection errors are still likely.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are overwhelmingly lowercase snake_case and descriptive, such as nist_control_family, polymarket_fill_risk, and list_subscriptions. Minor deviations exist with single-word memory verbs like remember/recall/forget and the ask_pipeworx_* variants, but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the comfortable range and includes many tools unrelated to the server's NIST Standards name, such as Polymarket betting, npm dependency scanning, AI visibility checks, and llms.txt generation. The set feels like a broad general-purpose data platform rather than a scoped NIST reference server.

Completeness3/5

For the NIST domain, the three control tools provide id lookup, family listing, and keyword search, but there is no catalog overview or family enumeration, and no comparison, revision, or export capability. The other 31 tools do not fill those gaps, so the NIST surface is functional but not fully complete for compliance workflows.

Resources