Skip to main content
Glama

Octopus Energy

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.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) already indicate safety, but the description adds rich behavioral context: it walks the order-book ladder, returns top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, max_fillable_usd, and verdict (clean|degraded|cannot_fill). It also explains the risks of thin legs and forced directional risk, going well beyond what annotations provide.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses bold for emphasis. While it is lengthy, every sentence adds value and explains complex behavior. It could be slightly more concise but is not redundant.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description provides a comprehensive understanding. It covers both modes, all parameters, return values, and potential pitfalls (partial fills, thin legs). It is fully adequate for an agent to correctly invoke this tool.

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 substantial meaning beyond the schema. It explains the dual interpretation of size_usd (max spend on buys vs target proceeds on sells for single-market; settlement notional for basket), the default auto side for basket mode, and the exact return fields. This provides a complete understanding of parameter behavior.

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 performs a 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' and distinguishes two modes: single-market and basket. It uses specific verbs like 'check' and explains the resource (CLOB order-book depth), differentiating it from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges.

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 instructs the agent to use this tool 'before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It explains why theoretical overround is not always capturable on thin books and warns that partial basket fills convert an arb into an unhedged directional position, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All Octopus Energy 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

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes due to detailed descriptions and specific domains. However, there is potential for confusion between `ask_pipeworx` and `ask_pipeworx_grounded` (both route to data), and among the four polymarket tools, which could cause misselection if not read carefully.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: while all use snake_case, they mix verbs (`ask_`, `list_`, `bet_`, `scan_`), noun phrases (`entity_profile`, `product_details`, `recent_alerts`), and imperative verbs (`forget`, `remember`, `recall`). No single pattern is followed throughout, making it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count3/5

With 31 tools, the server covers multiple domains (energy, general data, betting, memory, subscriptions) which feels heavy for a single server named 'Octopus Energy'. While each tool has a role, the scope is overly broad, and many tools are tangential to energy, suggesting the number could be reduced or better scoped.

Completeness3/5

For the energy domain, tools are present but only cover listing products and tariffs, missing account management or switching. For the broader domains (data, prediction markets), coverage is decent but lacks some expected features like browsing all available data sources or user profile management. The set is not fully comprehensive for any single purpose.

Resources