Skip to main content
Glama

Openfema

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?

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: walks the order book ladder, returns specific fields like top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, verdict flags, and warns about forced directional risk. No contradiction with 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 long but well-structured with bold headers for modes, making it scannable. It is front-loaded with main purpose. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'single-market' and 'basket' details), but overall it is effective. Loses one point for verbosity.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values. It does so comprehensively, listing all fields for both modes, including edge cases (thin legs, forced directional risk). Given the tool's complexity (two modes, four parameters), this is complete and well-covering.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how parameters differ by mode (e.g., 'size_usd' interpretation changes for basket vs single-market) and clarifying defaults. This is helpful but not transformative.

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 differentiates between single-market and basket modes, and explicitly contrasts with siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges, making it highly specific.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. It explains why it's needed (theoretical overround not capturable, partial basket fills lead to unhedged positions), providing clear when-to-use context.

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

All Openfema 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are near-duplicates or heavily overlapping: ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all cover grounded-answer territory. The prediction-market cluster (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_kalshi_spread, bet_research) also has fuzzy boundaries that would require careful reading to differentiate.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes several conventions: verb_noun (query_dataset, resolve_entity, validate_claim), noun phrases (entity_profile, disaster_declarations, deep_research), and branded prefixes (pipeworx_trending, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage). Some tools use scan_, some ask_, some list_, with no single predictable pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the set exceeds the 25+ 'too many' threshold and carries a lot of surface area. The server is named Openfema, yet only about three tools actually relate to FEMA data, making the count feel inflated relative to the stated name and purpose.

Completeness4/5

For its actual broad domain—a general structured-data research gateway—the surface is quite comprehensive: discovery, single lookups, grounded verification, deep multi-source research, entity resolution, comparisons, change feeds, memory, subscriptions, and prediction-market analysis are all covered. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct OpenFEMA dataset metadata beyond list_datasets, and some tools require accounts/paywalls), but agents can generally accomplish the intended workflows.

Resources