Skip to main content
Glama

Riot Games

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already indicate safe, non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral detail: it walks the order book ladder, returns a verdict (clean|degraded|cannot_fill), and warns that partial basket fills create unhedged directional risk. 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 comprehensive but slightly verbose. However, it is well-structured with clear sections (REQUIRES, SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET, USE THIS), making information easy to scan. Every sentence adds value, but could be tightened slightly.

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, multiple return values) and the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains all return fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, max_fillable_usd, verdict, theoretical_sum, realizable_sum, capture_ratio, profit_usd, per-leg fill detail, thin_legs[], max_clean_notional_usd, forced_directional_risk). It also provides operational context about risk and usage.

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%, but the description adds substantial meaning: it clarifies the interpretation of size_usd for buys vs. sells and singles vs. baskets, explains the default side logic for baskets, and details the implications of each parameter. This goes far beyond the schema descriptions.

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'. It distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, lists specific return fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc.), and differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by explaining its role as a pre-trade check.

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 explicitly instructs: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. It explains why (theoretical overround on thin books is not capturable, partial basket fills convert arb to unhedged directional position), providing clear guidance on when and why to use this tool over alternatives.

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