Skip to main content
Glama

npm

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Polymarket Arbitrage

polymarket_arbitrage
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks. Call with NO args for a trending_scan of the top ~200 markets by weekly volume; pass event for the strongest per-event partition_check, or topic for a themed cross-event scan. event (recommended for a specific market): pass a Polymarket event slug like "fed-decision-may-2026" or "when-will-bitcoin-hit-150k"; walks child markets, checks date-axis / threshold-axis ordering AND computes the partition_check (sum of YES prices across mutually-exclusive legs — should ≈1; deviations >3pp emit a BUY/SELL EVERY LEG signal). topic (for cross-event scanning): pass a seed question like "Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal" or "Fed rate decision"; searches related events across the platform, flattens markets, runs the comparator on the union. Cross-event mode catches "...by May 31" vs "...by Jun 30" patterns that single-event misses. SEMANTIC ANCHOR: cross-event pairs require ≥0.30 Jaccard similarity on question tokens (prevents Powell-Fed-Pause being paired with Powell-DOJ-probe); skipped_low_similarity surfaces the rejected pair count. PARTITION FILTER: drops will-person-X / will-manager-Y / will-someone-else- placeholder slugs; partitions with >20% placeholder fraction return null arb signal. Response: opportunities[] (gap_pp, suggested_trade, reasoning, monotonicity violation context), and in event mode partition_check{sum_yes_prices, gap_from_1, placeholders_filtered, suggested_trade}. FILL CHECK: when the partition signal fires, arbitrage.fill_check prices it against live CLOB depth (theoretical_edge_pp_at_book vs realizable_edge_pp at 1000 shares/leg, thin_legs[]) — realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0 means the overround exists only at last-trade, not in the book; do not trade it. For custom sizing use polymarket_fill_risk.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eventNoSingle-event mode (use this if you know the specific Polymarket event): event slug like "fed-decision-may-2026" or "when-will-bitcoin-hit-150k". Full Polymarket URLs also accepted.
topicNoCross-event mode (use this if you want to scan related events across the platform): a topic or seed question like "Fed rate decision" or "Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal". Tool searches Polymarket for related events and checks monotonicity across them.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "event"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "topic"
-    ]
-  }
-]
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "event"
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "topic"
+    ]
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / event / description
      Previous value: -"Single-event mode: Polymarket event slug (e.g. \"when-will-bitcoin-hit-150k\") or full URL."New value: +"Single-event mode (use this if you know the specific Polymarket event): event slug like \"fed-decision-may-2026\" or \"when-will-bitcoin-hit-150k\". Full Polymarket URLs also accepted."
    • changedInput schema / properties / topic / description
      Previous value: -"Cross-event mode: a topic or seed question. Tool searches Polymarket for related markets across separate events and checks monotonicity across them. E.g. \"Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal\"."New value: +"Cross-event mode (use this if you want to scan related events across the platform): a topic or seed question like \"Fed rate decision\" or \"Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal\". Tool searches Polymarket for related events and checks monotonicity across them."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: partition-sum deviations >3pp emit signals, placeholders like 'will-person-X' are filtered, Jaccard similarity ≥0.30 prevents bad cross-event pairing, and fill checks price against live CLOB depth. It even discloses failure modes like skipped_low_similarity and thin_legs[]. 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 quite long, but it is structured with labeled sections (SEMANTIC ANCHOR, PARTITION FILTER, FILL CHECK) and every segment adds a necessary constraint or behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the length is still substantial for a tool with only two parameters. A 4 reflects that it earns its length yet could be tightened.

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 and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers input modes, expected output shape (opportunities[] with gap_pp, suggested_trade, reasoning; partition_check fields), edge cases (placeholder slu, threshold limits), and how to follow up with polymarket_fill_risk. The agent has enough to invoke and interpret results 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% (both event and topic are documented), but the description goes far beyond the schema with concrete slug examples ('fed-decision-may-2026'), mode-specific semantics (event walks child markets, topic flattens related events), and how the two modes differ. It also explains what happens in each mode (partition_check in event mode, cross-event comparator in topic mode), adding meaning that the bare schema lacks.

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 opens with 'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks' — a specific verb+resource+mechanism. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by naming the unique detection method, so an agent can immediately understand this is the arbitrage-detection tool.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'event (recommended for a specific market)' versus 'topic (for cross-event scanning)', with a concrete example of what each mode covers. It also points to an alternative tool ('For custom sizing use polymarket_fill_risk') and warns when not to trade ('realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0 … do not trade it'). This gives clear decision rules beyond generic 'use for arbitrage'.

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

All npm 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Descriptions are exceptionally detailed and differentiate tools well; the ask_pipeworx family (stable/beta/grounded), polymarket tools, and npm lookup tools each have clear separation of intent. Minor overlap exists between polymarket_edges and polymarket_arbitrage (both surface opportunities) and between discover_tools, suggest_questions, and pipeworx_trending (all aid discovery), but descriptions mostly resolve the ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and several families are consistent (get_*, list_*, search_*, ask_pipeworx, polymarket_*), but the convention is inconsistent: verb-first names (resolve_entity, validate_claim, scan_dependency) coexist with noun-first or noun-only names (entity_profile, deep_research, bet_research, recent_alerts, ai_visibility_check, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_arbitrage). No clear governing pattern beyond snake_case.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well over the 25-tool heavy threshold, and the majority (~29) are unrelated to the server's declared 'npm' identity — they are Pipeworx data-query, prediction-market, memory, and subscription tools. Only about 7 tools (search_packages, get_package, get_version_info, list_versions, get_downloads, scan_dependency, generate_llms_txt) actually pertain to npm. The scope is a kitchen-sink mismatch with the server name.

Completeness3/5

For npm, the read-side surface is reasonably complete: search, inspect package metadata, version listings, download counts, and a dependency-safety composite check. However, there are no lifecycle operations (publish, unpublish, deprecate, set versions/tags), leaving a notable gap, and the bulk of the server's functionality (data queries, prediction bets) belongs to an entirely different domain that can't be cohesively evaluated against the npm purpose.

Resources