Skip to main content
Glama

Science Feeds

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?

Annotations indicate the tool is read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral details: it walks the live order-book ladder, returns specific fields (slippage, fill details, verdict), and warns that partial basket fills convert an arb into an unhedged directional position, which is the dominant loss mode. 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 lengthy but well-organized with clear sections for SINGLE-MARKET and BASKET modes, and each sentence provides necessary details. It could be slightly more concise, but the structure aids readability and completeness.

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 parameters, important behavioral insights) and absence of an output schema, the description covers all key aspects: inputs, return fields, usage context, and risks. It fully equips an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that market or event is required (mutually exclusive), clarifies default side behavior in basket mode ('auto from partition sum'), and interprets size_usd differently for buys vs sells and for basket mode (settlement notional). This goes beyond the 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 defines the tool as a 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge check' against live order-book depth. It distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, each with specific behavior and return values, effectively 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 the tool: before acting on polymarket_arbitrage signals or polymarket_edges trades above ~$500. It explains the rationale (theoretical overround not capturable, partial basket fills create unhedged positions) and provides clear directional context.

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

All Science Feeds 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical in behavior), and ask_pipeworx_grounded overlap heavily, and the six-tool Polymarket cluster (edges, arbitrage, fill_risk, edge_tracker, kalshi_spread, bet_research) requires careful reading to distinguish. Descriptions are detailed, but several tools present real selection ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tools use snake_case with a mostly verb-first or resource-first pattern (ask_, list_, fetch_, read_, subscribe, validate_claim). Minor deviations like entity_profile and recent_changes break the verb-noun pattern slightly, but the overall naming is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for the 'Science Feeds' name, which implies a narrow feed-reading service; only 3 tools actually relate to feeds. The rest form a broad Pipeworx grab bag (memory, npm scanning, AI visibility, prediction markets, feedback), making the set feel unfocused and overweight.

Completeness4/5

For the broad query/research domain the descriptions actually establish, coverage is strong: discovery, single lookups, grounded/refusal-safe answers, deep research, entity resolution, comparison, change feeds, claim validation, subscriptions, memory, and feedback are all present. The literal science-feed surface is thin, but the toolkit as a whole has few dead ends.

Resources