Skip to main content
Glama

Nyt

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?

The description adds rich behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the ladder-walking algorithm, return fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage, etc.), and warns about unhedged directional risk from partial basket fills. It is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) and adds valuable detail.

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 sections (SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET) and bullet-point-like lists, front-loading the purpose. While lengthy, every sentence is informative and justified by the tool's complexity. Minor deduction for density, but overall efficient.

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 absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly covers return values for both modes (e.g., top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, thin_legs). It also includes usage constraints, behavioral warnings, and parameter defaults. No gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the default side logic in basket mode ('auto'), interprets size_usd for baskets as settlement notional per leg, and clarifies market/event usage. This justifies a 4.

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 purpose: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth'. It specifies distinct modes (single-market and basket), lists return fields, and differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by focusing on fill risk assessment.

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 explicitly states when to use: '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) and provides parameter requirements (one of market or event).

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

All Nyt 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

ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical today, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route to the same underlying sources with overlapping question-answering purposes. Entity-focused tools like entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, and resolve_entity also have fuzzy boundaries that make selection error-prone.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names mix conventions: verb_noun (list_subscriptions, search_articles, generate_llms_txt), bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), noun phrases (polymarket_arbitrage, pipeworx_trending, entity_profile), and an ask_* family with beta/grounded variants. There is no consistent verb or noun pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 35 tools, the surface is well above the 15-tool threshold for a focused server, and most tools are unrelated to the NYT domain implied by the server name. The breadth reflects a broad data-platform grab bag rather than a scoped, intentional tool set.

Completeness4/5

The query side is unusually complete: single-lookup, grounded lookup, deep research, claim validation, entity resolution, comparison, profile, change-feed, discovery, memory, and subscription lifecycle tools are all present. Minor gaps remain, such as no direct NYT article fetch by URL and no update path for stored memories, but agents can work around them.

Resources