Skip to main content
Glama

Salesforce

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?

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.). It explains how the tool walks the order book ladder, what return fields to expect (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc.), and warns that partial basket fills can cause 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 well-structured with clear sections for modes and requirements. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value given the complexity of the tool. Front-loading the core purpose and requirements helps quick understanding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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) and no output schema, the description covers the essential return values (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, theoretical_sum, capture_ratio, etc.) and risk factors (thin_legs, forced_directional_risk). It is complete enough for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, the description adds deep semantics: it clarifies how 'side' defaults differ by mode, that 'size_usd' is interpreted as settlement notional in basket mode, and that 'market' and 'event' are mutually exclusive. This goes well 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 the tool's purpose as a realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by explicitly telling the agent to use this tool before acting on their signals.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500', and explains the risks (partial fills converting arb into unhedged directional positions). This gives clear when-to-use and why.

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

All Salesforce 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set mixes Salesforce CRUD tools with a large Pipeworx research and prediction-market platform, and several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta are functionally identical, grounded/validate_claim/deep_research cover similar lookup/verification territory, and the six polymarket/bet tools share edge-finding purposes with only subtle distinctions. An agent would need to read long descriptions carefully to pick the right one, so misselection risk is high.

Naming Consistency3/5

Salesforce tools follow a clear sf_verb_noun pattern, and the Pipeworx tools mostly use lowercase snake_case phrase names, but the conventions diverge: ask_pipeworx has no underscore, deep_research/entity_profile are noun phrases rather than verb-first, and the sf_* prefix is a separate naming family. It is still readable, but it is not a single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

39 tools is well past the heavy threshold, and most belong to a broad data/research platform rather than the Salesforce scope implied by the server name; only 8 tools are actually Salesforce CRUD/query operations. The count feels bloated for a coherent assistant, even if individual features are useful.

Completeness4/5

The Salesforce subset is complete: create/get/update/delete/query/search/describe/list-object cover the record lifecycle with no dead ends. The broader Pipeworx ecosystem also has strong coverage, including routing, grounded verification, research, entity resolution, memory, and subscriptions, with only minor gaps such as no direct citation-fetch tool and no Salesforce upsert/bulk operations.

Resources