Skip to main content
Glama

Passive Aggression

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=False. Description adds behavioral context: walks the ladder, returns verdict (clean|degraded|cannot_fill), identifies thin_legs and forced_directional_risk. Warns about partial basket fills converting arb to directional position. 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?

Well-structured with bold headers and bullet points. Somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but very clear and organized.

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 complexity (two modes, multiple return fields, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, parameter details, risks, and returns. Provides enough context for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the 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 coverage is 100%; description adds meaning beyond schema: explains side parameter in both single-market and basket contexts, clarifies size_usd interpretation (max spend on buys, target proceeds on sells, settlement notional for baskets), provides default 1000 and clamp range.

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?

Clearly states 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' and distinguishes between single-market and basket modes. The description details what the tool returns (e.g., top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage, verdict) and differentiates from 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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' Provides reasons why (theoretical overround not capturable on thin books, partial basket fills create directional risk).

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