Skip to main content
Glama

Sec Regulations

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description details what the tool computes: walks the ladder, returns top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, max_fillable_usd, verdict. For basket mode, it explains forced_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?

Description is verbose but well-structured, with sections for SINGLE-MARKET and BASKET. Front-loaded with core purpose. Each sentence adds essential information for the two modes. Could be slightly trimmed but efficient given 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?

No output schema exists, so description must document return values. It does comprehensively: for single-market lists all output fields; for basket lists all output fields including thin_legs, forced_directional_risk. Covers edge cases and risks fully.

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 description adds critical meaning: explains market vs event modes, side parameter defaults and interpretation, size_usd difference between single-market (spend/proceeds) and basket (settlement notional). This goes well beyond the brief 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 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' and distinguishes between single-market and basket modes. This differentiates it from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges, making the tool's unique role obvious.

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 says 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500', providing a clear when-to-use directive. It also warns about partial fills converting arb to directional risk, and requires either market or event parameter.

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

All Sec Regulations 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

Several tools have nearly identical purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges both scan for betting opportunities, and ai_visibility_check overlaps with scan_competitor_ai_presence. The long descriptions help, but an agent must read carefully to distinguish the meta-routers (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions) from each other.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority use lowercase snake_case with a verb-first or domain-prefixed noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, sec_regulations_search, polymarket_edges). Minor deviations like entity_profile, recent_alerts, and ai_visibility_check are noun-first, and sec_regulation vs sec_regulations_search is slightly inconsistent, but the overall style is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools this exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many', and most are unrelated to the server's stated name 'Sec Regulations'—only sec_regulation and sec_regulations_search fit that label. While each tool has a defined purpose, the set feels like several distinct servers (research, betting, memory, subscriptions) crammed into one.

Completeness3/5

For a general data-research platform, the surface is broad: Q&A routers, entity resolution/profiles, comparisons, validation, memory, subscriptions, and domain-specific tools. But the SEC-regulation focus implied by the server name is severely under-served, and there's no direct tool to fetch a raw document by citation/URI outside of the ask_pipeworx router. The Polymarket cluster is over-built relative to other data domains.

Resources