Skip to main content
Glama

Paperswithcode

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.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) and adds valuable behavioral details: it walks the order book ladder, returns a verdict (clean|degraded|cannot_fill), warns about partial basket fills converting arb into unhedged directional positions, and explains the dominant loss mode in arb-bot P&L. 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 well-organized with clear sections for modes and usage note, but it is somewhat verbose. Some details (like definitions of terms) could be tightened. However, it is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains focused on helping the agent select and use the tool correctly.

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 complexity (two modes, 4 params, no output schema), the description is comprehensive. It explains both modes thoroughly, lists return fields (top_of_book, slippage, capture_ratio, etc.), warns about risks (thin legs, forced directional risk), and provides operational context (use before arb signals, threshold of $500). No gaps identified.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds context beyond schema: explains mutual exclusivity of 'market' and 'event', default side logic for basket mode, and clarifies size_usd meaning (max spend vs settlement notional) and clamping range (10–1,000,000). This enriches parameter understanding.

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 specifies two modes (single-market and basket), lists return fields for each, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by explicitly telling when to use this tool before those.

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 always capturable, partial fills create directional risk) and contrasts with alternatives, making it clear when to use this tool versus others.

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

All Paperswithcode 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 form overlapping families: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research cover much of the same router territory, and five Polymarket tools overlap heavily on edge/arbitrage analysis. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent would regularly need to compare multiple near-equivalent candidates before choosing one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently snake_case and readable, but the conventions vary widely: verb_noun (search_papers, resolve_entity), noun phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage, recent_changes), bare verbs (remember, subscribe, forget), and suffixed variants (ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded). It is not chaotic, but there is no single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

Thirty-five tools is far too many for a server named Paperswithcode, especially since only four tools actually relate to papers while the rest cover data routing, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, npm auditing, llms.txt generation, and AI visibility. The count feels bloated and the scope unfocused relative to the server's apparent identity.

Completeness3/5

The paper-discovery subdomain is reasonably covered with search, trending, detail, and implementation lookup, and the broader set includes discovery, memory, subscription lifecycle, and feedback tools. However, the overall surface is a patchwork of unrelated domains with no well-defined boundary, and paper datasets/models can only be counted rather than directly listed. Agents can work around most gaps, but the coverage is uneven.

Resources