Skip to main content
Glama

Passive Aggression

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.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "event"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "topic"
-    ]
-  }
-]
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "event"
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "topic"
+    ]
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / event / description
      Previous value: -"Single-event mode: Polymarket event slug (e.g. \"when-will-bitcoin-hit-150k\") or full URL."New value: +"Single-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."
    • changedInput schema / properties / topic / description
      Previous value: -"Cross-event mode: a topic or seed question. Tool searches Polymarket for related markets across separate events and checks monotonicity across them. E.g. \"Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal\"."New value: +"Cross-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."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already indicate safety. The description adds rich behavioral context: fill check against live CLOB depth, semantic anchor for cross-event pairs, partition filter, and detailed return format. 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 lengthy but well-structured, with a clear front-loaded summary and logical progression through modes, filters, and fill check. Each sentence adds value; minor redundancy could be trimmed but overall effective.

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 tool's complexity (three modes, partition filter, similarity check, fill check) and no output schema, the description covers all aspects: return format (opportunities[], partition_check), edge cases (placeholder slugs, low similarity), and actionable guidance (when not to trade). Very complete.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. It explains event slug vs topic, examples, and how each mode affects behavior (e.g., partition_check, cross-event similarity). This provides critical context for correct invocation.

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 finds arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes three modes (no-args, event, topic) with specific use cases, making it distinct from sibling tools like polymarket_edges or 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?

The description explicitly states when to use each mode: no args for trending scan, event for a specific market, topic for cross-event scanning. It also warns when not to trade (realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0) and directs to 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 Passive Aggression 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

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, particularly the various data query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research, etc.) that share similar functionality with subtle differences. The detailed descriptions help but the boundaries are not always clear, making it hard for an agent to reliably select the correct tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming follows a mix of patterns: some tools use consistent verb_noun (subscribe, unsubscribe, remember, recall) but others are inconsistent (ask_pipeworx vs deep_research vs entity_profile). The main data tools have a common prefix but diverge in style, and the presence of tools like passive_aggression_detect and generate_llms_txt adds further inconsistency.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools, the server feels bloated. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., the ask_pipeworx variants, the Polymarket tools). The inclusion of tangential tools like passive_aggression_detect and generate_llms_txt suggests scope creep. A typical well-scoped server would have 10-15 tools.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide range of data access and some auxiliary functions (memory, subscriptions, feedback), but there are notable gaps like user authentication and data visualization. The addition of an unrelated sentiment analysis tool makes the surface feel incomplete for a focused data server.

Resources