Skip to main content
Glama

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?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read operation. Description adds critical behavioral detail about order book depth checks, partial fill risks, and the dominant loss mode (unhedged positions), going beyond 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 dense but well-structured: starts with purpose, then mode details, then usage guidance and warnings. Every sentence is informative, though slightly long. Could be slightly more concise but all content is relevant.

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?

Comprehensively covers both modes, return fields, risk factors, and usage context. No output schema, but description details all returned metrics and warnings. Given tool complexity (two modes, risk of partial fills), the description is fully adequate.

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%, and the description further clarifies parameter usage: e.g., REQUIRES one of `market` or `event`, explains side default behavior per mode (auto for basket), and size_usd interpretation differences between single-market and basket. Adds significant value beyond 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 it's a 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth', distinguishing between single-market and basket modes. It details what each mode returns and explicitly references sibling tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges) to differentiate when this tool should be used.

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?

Explicitly states 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. Also warns about partial basket fills converting an arb into unhedged directional position, providing clear when-to-use and risk context.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools serve overlapping purposes (multiple ask_pipeworx variants, several entity tools, multiple Polymarket edge tools), and while descriptions are detailed, an agent would struggle to quickly select the correct tool without careful reading.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: some use verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, extract_text), others use noun_phrase (ai_visibility_check, bet_research, entity_profile), and no clear pattern dominates.

Tool Count3/5

32 tools is above the typical well-scoped range (3-15). While the broad domain of data query, prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions somewhat justifies the count, it still feels heavy and could benefit from consolidation.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers most operations for its domain: data query (with multiple depth levels), memory CRUD, subscription lifecycle, and utilities like OCR and dependency scanning. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct modify operation), but overall it's fairly complete.