Skip to main content
Glama

Osha

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: it walks the ladder, returns top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, verdict, forced_directional_risk, etc. 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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses all-caps for key mode names and warnings, aiding scanability. However, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for quicker parsing given its length. Slightly verbose but efficient for the complexity.

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 returns. It thoroughly lists return fields for both modes (e.g., top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, capture_ratio, thin_legs). Also covers edge cases like partial fills and forced directional risk. Complete for a risk-check tool.

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 coverage is 100% with good descriptions. The tool description adds extra meaning beyond schema: explains size_usd interpretation per mode (single-market vs basket settlement notional), default side logic for basket mode, and clamp range. This goes above the baseline 3.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It clearly distinguishes two modes (single-market and basket), specifies what each returns, and contrasts with 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?

The description provides explicit guidance: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It explains why (theoretical overround not capturable, partial fills cause unhedged positions) and implies when not to use (small trades).

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