Skip to main content
Glama

Remoteok

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context beyond annotations: it 'walks the ladder', specifies clamping on size_usd (10–1,000,000), and warns about forced_directional_risk. 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Well-structured: header summary, requirements (market|event), mode details (SINGLE-MARKET and BASKET sections), then usage guidance. Every sentence is informative; no filler or 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?

No output schema, so description must cover return values. It does: for single-market (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc.) and basket (theoretical_sum vs realizable_sum, capture_ratio, profit_usd, etc.). Also explains key risks (thin_legs, forced_directional_risk). Fully adequate given complexity.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds: for single-market, size_usd is 'max spend on buys, target proceeds on sells'; for basket, it's 'settlement notional — shares per leg'. It also explains side default for basket (auto based on partition sum). Adds value beyond schema.

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 between single-market and basket modes. It lists specific return values for each mode, differentiating it from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges.

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: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It explains why, citing risks of thin books and partial fills converting arb to unhedged positions.

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

All Remoteok 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

Several tool clusters have fuzzy boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer questions through the same routing layer, while polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, and bet_research all address prediction-market edges. Even with detailed descriptions, an agent can easily select the wrong variant.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are uniformly lowercase snake_case and many follow a verb_noun pattern (list_jobs, search_jobs, resolve_entity, validate_claim), but there are numerous noun-first and adjective-first exceptions (entity_profile, recent_alerts, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_arbitrage) plus bare verbs (remember, forget, recall, subscribe). The pattern is readable but not consistently applied.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the well-scoped range, and the vast majority are not about the server's RemoteOK namesake. The set appears to merge several distinct domains (Pipeworx data research, Polymarket betting, RemoteOK jobs, memory utilities) into one oversized surface, making it feel more like a bundled platform than a focused server.

Completeness4/5

For the dominant Pipeworx/data-research theme, coverage is strong: question answering, grounded verification, entity profiles, comparisons, change feeds, discovery, memory, subscriptions, and citation-based research are all present. The RemoteOK job subset covers list/search/get without obvious dead ends. Minor gaps exist (no direct citation-URI fetcher, no job alert subscriptions), but agents can work around them.

Resources