Skip to main content
Glama

Pypi Stats

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.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations, the description reveals key behavioral traits: it walks the order book ladder, returns verdicts (clean/degraded/cannot_fill), and warns about forced directional risk from thin legs. This adds critical context not captured by annotations alone.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then details modes and returns. While comprehensive, it could be slightly more concise by separating mode blocks more clearly. Every sentence adds value, making it effective but not maximally concise.

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 complexity (two modes, detailed return fields, risk warnings), the description is thorough. It covers all return values for both modes, explains edge cases (cannot_fill), and provides actionable guidance. With no output schema, the description fully compensates by listing all fields.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining context (e.g., automatic side selection in basket mode, size_usd interpretation differences for buys vs sells and single vs basket, and clamp range). It clarifies parameter relationships better than the schema alone.

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 defines the tool as a realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live order-book depth, distinguishing between single-market and basket modes. It specifies the exact resource (Polymarket CLOB) and the action (risk assessment), differentiating it from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage.

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 this tool: before acting on polymarket_arbitrage signals or polymarket_edges trades above ~$500. It explains why (theoretical overround not capturable on thin books) and warns against misuse (partial basket fills leading to unhedged positions), providing clear context for the AI agent.

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

All Pypi Stats 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There is significant overlap between tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, all performing similar data lookup functions. Additionally, multiple prediction market tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk) have overlapping purposes. An agent would struggle to choose the correct tool without deep understanding of subtle differences.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern and use clear domain prefixes (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_, python_) and verb_noun structure (e.g., validate_claim, compare_entities). Minor inconsistency exists with tools like 'overall' not following verb_noun, but overall pattern is predictable.

Tool Count3/5

With 36 tools, the count is high but justifiable given the broad array of capabilities (data queries, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions). However, the server name 'Pypi Stats' suggests a narrow focus, making the count feel excessive for that purpose. The actual scope is wide, so the count is borderline appropriate.

Completeness4/5

For its actual scope as a data query and analysis platform, the tool set is quite complete: it covers company profiles, comparisons, claim verification, trend analysis, and prediction market insights. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update/delete for most data types), but core query and lookup operations are well covered.

Resources