Skip to main content
Glama

Notion_connect

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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context about the risk of partial fills and forced directional risk, which are beyond the annotation information. 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is quite long and contains some redundancy (e.g., repeated explanation of modes). While well-structured with sections, it could be more concise. Some sentences are dense and could be streamlined.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists all return fields for both modes, explains risks, and describes forced directional risk. This is highly complete given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains the two modes, the default logic for side in basket mode, and the interpretation of size_usd for buys vs sells and for baskets. This is valuable additional context.

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 order book depth. It distinguishes two modes (single-market and basket) and explicitly contrasts with sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by stating when to use this tool before acting on signals.

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 that partial basket fills convert an arb into an unhedged directional position, which is crucial context for when to use the tool.

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

All Notion_connect 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to the same 5,708 tools, with beta explicitly described as currently identical to the stable version. Prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage) also blur together, and the Notion tools are a small island in a sea of unrelated Pipeworx utilities.

Naming Consistency3/5

The names are uniformly lowercase with underscores, but conventions are mixed: some use verb-first patterns (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency), others are noun-phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes, polymarket_edges), and domain prefixes are inconsistent (notion_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, but bare bet_research, compare_entities, recall). It is readable but lacks a coherent naming scheme.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is already heavy, but the bigger issue is scope: the server is named Notion_connect yet only 5 of 36 tools relate to Notion. The rest span data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, npm auditing, and llms.txt generation — a grab bag far beyond any single purpose, with multiple redundant meta-tools inflating the count.

Completeness2/5

As a Notion connector it is severely incomplete: there is no create/update/delete for pages or databases, and no way to write content back to Notion — only read/search/query operations. For the broader Pipeworx surface, the tool set is sprawling but unfocused, so it is hard to identify a coherent domain where coverage could be considered complete.

Resources