Skip to main content
Glama

Nypl

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations by detailing mode-specific behavior, return fields, size interpretation, and risk of unhedged positions. It discloses that partial basket fills convert an arb into directional risk, which is critical behavioral context not present in 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 long but well-structured with clear mode breakdowns (SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET) and a usage directive. Every sentence provides value, though some redundancy exists (e.g., repeated warnings about thin books). It is appropriately sized for a complex tool with two modes.

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 having no output schema, the description thoroughly enumerates all relevant return fields for both modes (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, capture_ratio, thin_legs, etc.). It also covers size limits, defaults, mode selection, and risk scenarios, making it self-sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning: it explains how 'size_usd' is interpreted differently in single-market (max spend/target proceeds) vs basket (settlement notional), clarifies default side selection, and explains the market/event mode distinction. This contextual layer is beyond the schema descriptions.

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's core function: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It explicitly differentiates single-market and basket modes, each with specific verbs and outputs, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by focusing on fill risk.

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?

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 names alternatives and explains the risk of partial fills, giving clear context for when not to rely on theoretical edges.

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

All Nypl 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, with clear descriptions differentiating similar ones like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded. A few overlaps exist (multiple Polymarket analysis tools), but descriptions sufficiently resolve ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool naming is inconsistent, mixing descriptive phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_edges) with verb-object patterns (generate_llms_txt, search). No strong convention is followed, and the 'polymarket_' prefix is applied to some betting tools but not others.

Tool Count3/5

32 tools is high but not extreme. However, the scope is too broad for a single server, covering data queries, betting, memory, NYPL, and more, making the set feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

The domain is unclear due to mixed tools, but within the NYPL subset there are clear gaps (only search and item, no CRUD). For the other domains, coverage is uneven and lacks clear lifecycle completeness.

Resources