Skip to main content
Glama

Pipeworx

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.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds extensive behavioral context: monotonicity checks, partition filter (placeholder exclusion), fill check against CLOB depth, and semantic anchor (Jaccard similarity). No contradictions.

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 detailed and well-structured with sections (SEMANTIC ANCHOR, PARTITION FILTER, FILL CHECK) but is somewhat lengthy. Despite this, it is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear formatting to aid readability.

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 (multiple modes, arbitrage detection logic), the description is thorough. It explains the output format (opportunities[], partition_check), the fill risk mechanism, and conditions to avoid trading, leaving no critical gaps despite the lack of an output schema.

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 greatly enriches parameter meaning. It explains the difference between event and topic modes, provides example inputs for each, and details the internal logic (partition_check, fill checking) that each parameter triggers.

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 itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_fill_risk by detailing its specific approach and modes.

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 explains when to use each parameter: no args for trending_scan, event for single-event, topic for cross-event. Provides real-world examples and warns when not to execute a trade (e.g., realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0).

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

All Pipeworx 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially the central data access tools like ask_pipeworx, deep_research, entity_profile, and compare_entities. However, the multiple polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) and the similar ask_pipeworx variants could cause confusion, especially for an agent quickly scanning options.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are mostly snake_case and follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_entities, search_packs, resolve_entity). Some deviations exist, such as pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage (starting with a noun), and single-word names like forget and remember, but overall the style is readable and consistent.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the server feels overly heavy. While the broad domain (structured data across many sources) justifies a large number, the count exceeds the recommended 15–25 range, making it unwieldy for agents to navigate efficiently without extensive discovery.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of domains: company financials, drugs, economics, prediction markets, weather, and even MCP discovery. There are few obvious gaps given the stated purpose, though some areas like social media or international data could be added. Overall, the surface is well-rounded.

Resources