Skip to main content
Glama

Postscript

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?

Annotations include readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about being a read-only check, not executing trades, and explains return fields and risks (thin legs, forced 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 somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value. It front-loads the main purpose and then details modes and return fields. Could be slightly more structured, but it is well-organized with clear sections (SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET).

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 (two modes, many return fields), the description provides complete context: when to use, what parameters mean, what outputs to expect, and risks. Schema coverage is 100% and annotations are present, but the description adds enough to make it self-contained.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema: explains the difference between single-market and basket modes for market/event parameters, default side logic for basket, and interpretation of size_usd (spend vs target proceeds vs settlement notional).

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 does a 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' with specific verb 'check' and resource 'edge'. It distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, and differentiates from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by its focus on 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 says 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also explains why (theoretical overround not capturable, partial fills create directional risk) and offers alternatives implicitly.

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

All Postscript 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 clear, distinct purposes with detailed descriptions that differentiate them. However, there is some overlap among data query tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx, deep_research, entity_profile) and among Polymarket analysis tools, which could cause confusion for an agent.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names lack a consistent pattern, mixing snake_case (ai_visibility_check, bet_research) with descriptive phrases (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt) and some with verbs (list_subscriptions, remember). This inconsistency makes it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count3/5

With 34 tools, the server covers a broad scope including data querying, Polymarket analysis, SMS management, and utilities. While many tools are justified, the number feels slightly high and some tools (e.g., multiple Polymarket tools) might be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The server provides comprehensive coverage for data analysis, entity resolution, fact-checking, and monitoring. However, SMS management lacks create/update operations for keywords and subscribers, and there is no tool for sending SMS messages, indicating minor gaps.

Resources