Skip to main content
Glama

Pulsedive

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?

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses rich behavioral details: it walks child markets, applies a Jaccard similarity threshold (≥0.30), filters placeholder partitions (>20%), and performs a fill check against live CLOB depth, explicitly warning 'do not trade it' when realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0. No contradiction with annotations found.

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 long but well-structured with labeled sections (SEMANTIC ANCHOR, PARTITION FILTER, FILL CHECK) and front-loaded core purpose. Every sentence contributes value, though the density could be slightly reduced without losing critical context. The structured format makes it navigable despite its length.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully specifies return values (opportunities[] fields, partition_check fields) and behavior across all modes. It covers edge cases (low similarity, placeholder fractions, fill check), and references the custom sizing tool. For a complex tool with 0 required params, this is exceptionally 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% with clear descriptions for event and topic, but the description adds substantial meaning: gives concrete slug examples, explains the internal processing (walks child markets, searches related events, flattens markets), and details outputs for each mode. This goes well beyond the schema's basic field explanations.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+method: 'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks.' It clearly distinguishes between three modes (trending_scan, event, topic) and references a sibling tool (polymarket_fill_risk) for custom sizing, making its purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance for each mode: no args for trending scan, event mode for a specific market (recommended), topic mode for cross-event scanning. It also states an alternative tool for custom sizing ('For custom sizing use polymarket_fill_risk'), and explains the comparative advantage of cross-event mode over single-event mode.

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

All Pulsedive 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., five 'ask_pipeworx' variants and multiple prediction market tools with subtle distinctions. An agent would struggle to pick the correct tool without careful reading of long descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern with domain prefixes (pipeworx_, polymarket_, pulsedive_), but a few standalone verbs (forget, recall) break the pattern slightly. Overall consistent within groups.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the heavy side, but the server covers a broad range of domains (data querying, prediction markets, security, subscriptions). The count is borderline but not excessive given the scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide array of operations: querying, entity analysis, comparisons, prediction market edge detection, subscriptions, memory, and scanning. Minor gaps exist (e.g., limited to Polymarket/Kalshi for prediction markets), but overall the surface is comprehensive.

Resources