Skip to main content
Glama

Osha

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: internal logic of monotonicity checks, partition-sum validation, similarity filters (Jaccard >= 0.30), placeholder filtering (dropping certain slugs), and the fill check mechanism against CLOB depth. No contradictions 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: a summary sentence followed by detailed explanations per mode. Every sentence adds value, but some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'partition_check' explanation) could be reduced. Still, very informative and easy to parse.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the response structure: opportunities array with gap_pp, suggested_trade, reasoning, monotonicity context; partition_check object with sum_yes_prices, gap_from_1, placeholders_filtered, suggested_trade; and fill_check details with theoretical vs realizable edge. All important behaviors are covered.

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?

Both parameters (event, topic) are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds significant meaning: it explains the recommended mode for specific markets, gives example slugs for event, example seed questions for topic, and clarifies that no args triggers a trending_scan. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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 finds arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes three modes (no args, event, topic) and provides specific usage examples, making it highly differentiated from sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_fill_risk.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use each mode: no args for trending scan, event for specific market slug, topic for cross-event scanning. Examples of slugs and topics are given. It also explains when not to trade (when fill check yields zero or negative edge) and refers to the sibling tool polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing.

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

All Osha 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have similar purposes, such as the four ask_pipeworx variants and multiple prediction market analysis tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, etc.). While descriptions clarify differences, the overlap could cause misselection by an agent, especially with the high number of specialized market tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case, but the pattern is not fully consistent: some start with verbs (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, compare_entities) while others are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, osha_search). This minor inconsistency does not severely hinder readability.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the high side, but the server acts as a comprehensive data gateway covering multiple domains (financials, prediction markets, OSHA, etc.) and includes meta-tools (memory, subscriptions, feedback). The count is justified by the breadth, though it borders on being overwhelming.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core workflows: data lookup (ask_pipeworx), entity profiles, comparisons, prediction market analysis, and memory management. There are minor gaps, such as no direct SEC filing retrieval tool (handled via ask_pipeworx), but the overall surface is comprehensive for the server's stated purpose.

Resources