Skip to main content
Glama

Opencellid

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Bet Research

bet_research
Read-onlyIdempotent

Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call. Pass a market slug ("will-bitcoin-hit-150k-by-june-30-2026"), a polymarket.com URL, or a question text. The tool resolves the market, classifies the bet, fans out to category-specific data packs in parallel, and returns an evidence packet + simple market-vs-model comparison. Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z". CLASSIFIERS: crypto_price, fed_rate, geopolitical, sports, sports_championship, drug_approval, election_candidate, tech_launch, space_launch, corporate, corporate_earnings, corporate_event, public_figure_speech, weather, other. FAN-OUT EXAMPLES: BTC bet → coingecko + fred + gdelt+gnews; Fed bet → fred (DFEDTARU + EFFR + CPIAUCSL) + kalshi_macro (KXFED implied probs) + recent_fed_actions (federal-register rules, last 365d); Hormuz bet → imf_portwatch + airspace + gdelt; Yankees WS → mlb_stats_standings + parent_event partition + news; hottest-year bet → climate_projection_nyc + gistemp_latest (NASA global anomaly, rank since 1880) + news; NVDA-vs-AAPL → finnhub get_quote + edgar shares-outstanding (derived market cap) + edgar filings + news. RESPONSE SHAPES: result.market carries best_bid/best_ask/spread_pp/liquidity/price_change_1h/1d/1w; result.analysis carries model_probability/edge_pp/kelly_fraction_half when a closed-form model fires PLUS a 24h-move warning ("Market moved X.Xpp in 24h, comparable to model edge — your edge may already be priced in") when relevant; result.evidence is keyed by source. RESOLVER CONTRACT: result.market_match_confidence ∈ {high, medium, low, none}, market_match_score (0-1 token-overlap), market_match_alternatives[] (other candidate markets the resolver considered), and suggestions[] (explicit re-query hints when the match is fuzzy) — ALWAYS inspect these before trusting the analysis block, because medium/low matches can still surface other fields. PARENT_EVENT EXTRACTOR: when the bet is one leg of a partition (Yankees WS, Romania election), result.parent_event{matched_candidate, top_legs_by_price[], partition_size, placeholders_filtered} gives you the peer prices in one place — that's the headline for elections/championships. NEWS FIELDS: news entries carry _fallback_attempted / _fallback_failed_reason / retry_after_sec when GDELT 429s and GNews backfill ran or failed. SAFETY: low-confidence resolutions short-circuit with status:"low_confidence_match" and suppress analysis fields so agents can't accidentally size on phantom matches. Closed/dead markets that ARE still indexed by Polymarket (yes_price≈0, no volume, no liquidity) return status:"market_closed_or_inactive" and skip fan-out. In practice resolved markets are usually de-indexed and instead surface via the low_confidence_match path above — both routes are BLOCKING, just different mechanisms. Wide-spread markets (>10pp) carry tradeability:"illiquid_wide_spread" + an explanatory note. RESOLUTION-RULE RISK: market.cancellation_rule parses the void/postponement settlement out of the resolution text — refund_50_50 (shares settle flat 50¢ on void; EV-material for any entry away from 50¢, with ev_impact quantified), resolves_no_on_cancel, resolves_yes_on_cancel, carries_to_reschedule, or mentioned_unclear. null means the description never mentions cancellation. Check this before sizing sports/esports/event-occurrence bets — audited arb-bot ledgers show flat-50¢ void settlements are a recurring pure-rules loss.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthNoquick = 2-3 evidence sources, thorough = full fan-out. Default thorough.
marketYesPolymarket slug ("will-bitcoin-hit-150k-by-june-30-2026"), full URL ("https://polymarket.com/event/..."), or question text ("Will Bitcoin hit $150k by June 30?")
include_rawNoDefault false. When false (recommended), FRED/FDA/GDELT/Federal-Register evidence is summarized to the few fields agents actually use — keeps responses under ~20KB. Pass true to get full upstream payloads (50KB-500KB) when you need to recompute deltas, cite specific observations, or post-process.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / examples
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "market_input": "will fed cut rates in june 2026"
-  },
-  {
-    "market_input": "https://polymarket.com/event/will-bitcoin-hit-150k-by-june-30-2026"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "market": "will-bitcoin-reach-100k-in-july-2026"
+  },
+  {
+    "market": "https://polymarket.com/event/will-bitcoin-hit-150k-by-june-30-2026"
+  }
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "market_input": "will fed cut rates in june 2026"
+  },
+  {
+    "market_input": "https://polymarket.com/event/will-bitcoin-hit-150k-by-june-30-2026"
+  }
+]
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / include_raw
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Default false. When false (recommended), FRED/FDA/GDELT/Federal-Register evidence is summarized to the few fields agents actually use — keeps responses under ~20KB. Pass true to get full upstream payloads (50KB-500KB) when you need to recompute deltas, cite specific observations, or post-process.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  4. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds extensive behavioral details: resolver contract with confidence levels, fan-out logic, response shapes, safety short-circuits for low confidence or closed markets, and resolution-rule risk. No contradictions; the description enriches the annotation context.

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 structured with clear sections (classifiers, fan-out examples, response shapes, etc.) and is front-loaded with the core purpose and use cases. However, it is quite lengthy and could be more concise by trimming redundant explanations (e.g., repeated mentions of low-confidence paths).

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 all return value shapes (market, analysis, evidence, resolver contract, parent event, news fields, safety indicators, cancellation rules). It addresses edge cases like low confidence, closed markets, wide spreads, and resolution rules, making it fully actionable for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description provides additional context beyond the schema: explains that 'market' accepts slug, URL, or question text; 'depth' describes the trade-off between quick and thorough; 'include_raw' explains when to use true vs false and the impact on response size. This adds significant value.

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 starts with a clear statement: 'Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call.' It identifies the specific verb 'Research', the resource 'Polymarket bet', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by targeting bet-specific research with use-case examples.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z".' It provides concrete examples but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving a minor gap in differentiation from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage or deep_research.

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

All Opencellid 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
Disambiguation3/5

While many tools have distinct purposes, there is significant overlap among the Pipeworx query tools: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and suggest_questions all route questions to the same underlying sources. Also, several Polymarket analysis tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk) have overlapping purposes of finding and analyzing betting edges. This overlap could cause misselection, though the detailed descriptions provide some disambiguation.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming is mostly readable but mixes conventions: pipeworx tools use snake_case (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_feedback), while the prediction market tools use camelCase (polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_arbitrage). Verbs vary widely: ask, get, scan, generate, recall, remember, resolve, search, subscribe, unsubscribe, validate. There's a mix of domain-specific prefixes and generic actions without a clear uniform pattern.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is a very large surface for an MCP server, even one covering a broad domain. While the server claims to cover many data sources (financial, pharma, economics, prediction markets, cell towers, etc.), the high count risks cognitive overload and makes it hard for an agent to discover the right tool. Many tools appear to be meta-tools (suggest_questions, discover_tools, remember/recall/forget) that add to the count without adding core domain operations.

Completeness4/5

The server covers a wide range of functionality: data lookup, entity resolution, research, prediction market analysis, memory management, subscriptions, and even niche features like AI visibility checking and llms.txt generation. Given the breadth, most use cases have coverage. However, the completeness is uneven—the OpenCellID tools (cells_in_area, get_cell) are very minimal with just two basic lookups and no batch/history features, while the Pipeworx side has extensive coverage. Some operations like updating or deleting entities are absent, but that may not be expected for a read-heavy data server.

Resources