Skip to main content
Glama

Odoo

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.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains scan types, SEMANTIC ANCHOR constraints, PARTITION FILTER, FILL CHECK with live CLOB depth, and the output structure. Annotations indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, which are consistent with the described behavior. No contradictions.

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 clear sections for each mode and details like fill check. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While lengthy, every sentence earns its place given the tool's complexity. Minor redundancy (e.g., fill check vs custom sizing reference) is acceptable.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return structure (opportunities[], partition_check, fill check results) and edge cases (skipped_low_similarity, placeholders_filtered). With two optional parameters and no required inputs, the description covers all necessary context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% with basic descriptions. The tool description enriches parameter semantics by providing examples (e.g., 'fed-decision-may-2026' for event, 'Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal' for topic), explaining how each parameter is used, and clarifying that full URLs are accepted for event. This adds value beyond the 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 the tool finds arbitrage opportunities via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes three modes (no args, event, topic) with specific examples, and the name and title align well with the purpose. Sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_fill_risk are distinct, and the description avoids ambiguity.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Call with NO args for a trending_scan', 'event (recommended for a specific market)', 'topic (for cross-event scanning)'. It explains why to choose each mode, when not to trade (fill check condition), and even references custom sizing via polymarket_fill_risk. This is comprehensive and actionable.

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

All Odoo 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
Disambiguation3/5

Some tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded; multiple Polymarket analysis tools) but descriptions help differentiate. Odoo-specific tools are distinct among themselves but muddled with many general-purpose tools.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is heavily inconsistent: Odoo tools follow 'odoo_list_*' pattern while others use varied structures like verb-first (forget, remember) or noun-first (entity_profile, recent_alerts). No unified verb_noun pattern across the set.

Tool Count3/5

At 32 tools, the server exceeds the typical well-scoped range (3–15) but is not excessively large. Many tools are generic and could be trimmed, making the set feel heavier than necessary.

Completeness2/5

Despite many tools, the server lacks essential CRUD operations for Odoo (e.g., create/update/delete leads) and the 'Odoo' name misrepresents the actual focus. Gaps in Odoo functionality and mixed domains create a sense of incompleteness.

Resources