Skip to main content
Glama

Riot Games

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds extensive behavioral context: algorithms (Jaccard similarity, partition sum), fill check with book depth, placeholder filtering, and response structure. 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 long but well-structured: summary sentence, then mode breakdown, followed by algorithm details and response format. Every sentence adds necessary information for a complex tool. Could be slightly more concise, but efficient overall.

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 (multiple modes, algorithmic checks, fill analysis, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: usage, logic, response fields, and actionable guidance (e.g., don't trade if realizable edge ≤ 0). Highly 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% and schema descriptions are informative, but the tool description adds rich detail: examples of slugs, acceptance of full URLs, and explanation that topic triggers cross-event scanning. This is significant added value.

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 finds arbitrage opportunities via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes between three modes (trending_scan, event, topic) and explains their triggers, making the purpose specific and actionable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides clear when-to-use guidance for each mode (no args, event, topic) and recommends event for specific markets. It also directs users to polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing. However, it lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools like polymarket_edges, which could clarify when NOT to use this tool.

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

All Riot Games 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: champion_mastery and summoner_top_mastery both return mastery data, and the ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) plus deep_research all handle question-answering. The inclusion of an entire unrelated Pipeworx research suite under a Riot Games server creates cross-domain ambiguity, making it difficult to know which tool to select.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case, but the pattern varies: resource_by_key (account_by_puuid), verb_noun (generate_llms_txt, compare_entities), bare verbs (forget, recall, remember), and standalone nouns (match, status). Pipeworx and polymarket tools share consistent prefixes, but the Riot tools and meta-tools break the pattern, resulting in a mixed but still readable convention.

Tool Count2/5

42 tools is far above the typical 3-15 for a focused server. Only 10 are Riot Games-specific; the remaining 28 are unrelated Pipeworx, data-research, Polymarket, and memory tools. The excessive count dilutes the server's purpose and makes it feel bloated.

Completeness3/5

The Riot Games domain is covered reasonably well with accounts, summoners, mastery, matches, and rankings, but misses common endpoints like champion static data and live match info. The extensive non-Riot tools do not fill these gaps and instead add an unrelated, separately complete surface that distracts from the server's apparent purpose.

Resources