Skip to main content
Glama

Scream Void

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent behavior. Description adds that it walks the order book ladder, computes various fill metrics, and identifies risky legs. 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is detailed but verbose. It uses structural elements like REQUIRES, SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET to organize content, but some sections could be condensed without losing meaning.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly lists return fields for both modes, including specific metrics and warnings. It covers key risks like thin legs and forced directional risk, making it complete for decision-making.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. Description adds context beyond schema, such as the interpretation of size_usd for basket mode as settlement notional and default side logic, providing additional clarity.

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 checks realizable-vs-theoretical edge against live order book depth, with distinct modes for single-market and basket. It differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by its specific risk assessment role.

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 advises when to use: before acting on polymarket_arbitrage signals or polymarket_edges trades above ~$500. Also warns about risks like partial basket fills converting an arb into an unhedged directional position.

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

All Scream Void 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap significantly in purpose, especially the ask_pipeworx variants (standard, beta, grounded) and deep_research, as well as the polymarket arbitrage/edges/fill_risk/kalshi_spread suite. It would be hard for an agent to reliably choose the correct tool without deep understanding of subtle distinctions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mostly use snake_case, but there is no consistent prefix or verb pattern. Some names are descriptive phrases (e.g., scream_void_scream, compare_entities) while others are vague (e.g., forget, recall). The mix of 'pipeworx_' prefix on some tools and lack of it on others adds inconsistency.

Tool Count3/5

32 tools is on the high side for a data research server, given the overlapping functionality. Some tools could be merged (e.g., the ask_pipeworx variants, polymarket tools). However, the count is not excessive enough to be unmanageable, and each tool serves a specific niche.

Completeness4/5

The server covers a broad range of data sources and prediction market analysis, with tools for research, comparison, monitoring, and memory. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to update stored memories or manage subscriptions beyond CRUD), but core workflows are well-supported.

Resources