Skip to main content
Glama

Osrm

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false): walks the ladder, returns specific fields, explains basket mode risks (thin_legs, forced_directional_risk), and verifies partial fills convert arb into 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 well-structured with headings (SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET), bullet points for return fields, and clear risk notes. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value given the complexity. Slightly verbose but appropriate.

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?

Fully covers input, dual modes, return fields, and risks. No output schema exists, but the description enumerates all return fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, etc.) and explains basket-specific outputs (capture_ratio, profit_usd, thin_legs, etc.). Complete for a complex tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by explaining defaults (size_usd default 1000, side default auto), basket-mode interpretation of size_usd, and side auto-detection. It clarifies behavior 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 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth', distinguishes single-market and basket modes, and specifies it should be used before acting on arbitrage signals or trades above $500. It differentiates from siblings 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?

Explicitly says 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500' and explains risks. It also states 'REQUIRES one of `market` or `event`', providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All Osrm 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct purposes, but there is notable overlap between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, all serving data retrieval. Similarly, the Polymarket betting tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.) share a domain, causing potential confusion for an agent.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern: snake_case (ai_visibility_check), camelCase-like (bet_research, compare_entities), and noun-first (entity_profile, recent_changes) are mixed. The lack of a uniform verb_noun or other convention makes it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a server named 'Osrm,' which suggests a focused routing engine. The actual tool set spans routing, data query, betting, entity resolution, and memory, indicating an overbroad scope that dilutes coherence.

Completeness3/5

The data query and betting tools are relatively comprehensive, but the routing side is minimal (missing isochrones, alternative routes). Gaps exist in general web search and coverage of other prediction markets. The server doesn't fully cover either the implied routing domain or the broader data/betting domain.

Resources