Skip to main content
Glama

Recreation Gov

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?

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral context: it explains it 'walks the ladder' and returns specific fields like top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc. It clearly states it is a 'check' not an execution. 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 information-dense and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses structural elements like 'SINGLE-MARKET:' and 'BASKET:' for readability. While somewhat long, every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.

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, no output schema) and numerous sibling tools, the description is thorough. It lists all return fields for both modes, explains the risk of partial fills, and provides enough context for an AI to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema: it explains the two modes, default values for side and size_usd, and interprets size_usd differently for single-market vs basket. It adds context that the schema descriptions do not fully capture.

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 it performs a 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' and distinguishes two modes (single-market and basket). It explicitly differentiates itself from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by saying 'USE THIS before acting on' them.

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 required parameters ('REQUIRES one of `market` or `event`') and explains when to use each mode. Provides clear guidance: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' Also warns about pitfalls like partial basket fills converting arb into directional risk.

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

All Recreation Gov 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools cluster around the same purpose: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route questions to similar data sources, and the polymarket_* family has several overlapping edge/arbitrage scanners. The four Recreation.gov tools are distinct but are buried among unrelated Pipeworx tools, making selection ambiguous.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are all snake_case and readable, with recognizable prefix families like ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, and pipeworx_* plus verb_noun names like search_facilities and list_campsites. However, the conventions are mixed: bare verbs, brand prefixes, and composite names coexist, and nothing in the naming signals that this is a Recreation.gov server.

Tool Count1/5

This server is named Recreation Gov but only 4 of 35 tools relate to recreation facilities; the other 31 are a general-purpose data, research, and prediction-market platform. That is an extreme scope mismatch for the server's stated purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the Recreation.gov surface, basic search and detail retrieval exist, but key operations like campsite availability, reservations, and permits are missing. The dominant Pipeworx functionality is unrelated to Recreation.gov, so the tool set as a whole has no coherent domain coverage.

Resources