Skip to main content
Glama

Ror

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations: it explains the ladder-walking process, conditional parameter requirements, return payloads for both modes, and the risk of forced directional exposure on partial fills. This is rich context that the annotations neither provide nor contradict.

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 every sentence carries essential information for a complex tool. It is well-structured with SINGLE-MARKET and BASKET blocks, front-loaded with the core purpose. It could be slightly tightened, but the density is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes full responsibility for explaining return values, and it does so comprehensively for both modes (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc.). It also covers edge cases like partial fills and thin legs, making the description complete for an agent to understand what the tool will provide.

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?

Although schema covers 100% of parameters, the description deepens meaning: it clarifies the conditional requirement of `market` vs `event`, changes interpretation of `size_usd` for basket mode (settlement notional vs spend/proceeds), and explains `side` defaults in both modes. This goes well beyond the schema's simple property 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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth') and clearly differentiates itself from siblings by name ('polymarket_arbitrage', 'polymarket_edges'). It details two distinct modes (single-market and basket) with concrete output fields, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit usage guidance provided: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. It also explains why (partial fills convert arb into unhedged position), giving clear when-to-use context and implicitly distinguishing from alternative tools.

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

All Ror 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, deep_research overlaps with ask_pipeworx, and discover_tools/suggest_questions both serve a discovery role. The extremely detailed descriptions help, but the boundaries between meta-tools and research tools are genuinely confusing, especially with 34 tools in one namespace.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of bare verbs (get, search, recall), nouns (affiliation, entity_profile, recent_changes), and verb_noun phrases (resolve_entity, compare_entities, validate_claim). Some families are consistent (polymarket_*), but overall there is no uniform convention or prefix scheme, making the set feel arbitrary.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the 25+ threshold for 'too many.' While the broad data-platform scope explains some of the count, many tools are meta-utilities (feedback, trending, memory, subscription management) and there are near-duplicate variants (three ask_pipeworx forms, six Polymarket tools) that inflate the surface.

Completeness4/5

For a data-research platform the surface is impressively complete: lookup, grounded verification, entity profiles, comparisons, claim checking, subscription lifecycle, memory, and tool discovery are all covered. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct general-purpose web fetch, and ROR lacks create/update, which is acceptable for a curated registry), but agents should rarely hit dead ends.

Resources