Skip to main content
Glama

Seo Backlinks

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints. The description adds detailed behavioral context: walks order book ladder, returns verdict (clean|degraded|cannot_fill), lists specific fields like vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, and 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?

Well-structured with bold mode headers and bullet-like lists. Front-loaded with purpose. However, slightly verbose; could be trimmed while retaining all essential information.

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, but description comprehensively lists return fields for both modes: single-market returns top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, max_fillable_usd, verdict; basket returns theoretical_sum, realizable_sum, capture_ratio, profit_usd, per-leg fill detail, thin_legs, max_clean_notional_usd, forced_directional_risk. Covers edge cases like auto side detection and size clamping.

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 the description adds meaning beyond schema: explains the 'auto' default for side in basket mode, interprets size_usd as settlement notional for baskets, and clarifies input expectations for market vs event parameters.

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 between single-market and basket modes, and references specific sibling tools (polymarket_arbitrage) to differentiate usage.

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 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' Provides rationale: theoretical overround on thin books is not capturable and partial basket fills convert arb into 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 Seo Backlinks 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly states it currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx, making them practically indistinguishable, and ask_pipeworx_grounded is the same router with one extra verification step. The five polymarket_* tools also share overlapping 'find/validate edge' territory, and scan_competitor_ai_presence is a direct wrapper over ai_visibility_check, so an agent must read carefully to pick correctly.

Naming Consistency3/5

Prefix families (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, seo_backlinks_*, pipeworx_*) provide some predictability, and several tools follow verb_noun (compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim). However, conventions mix single verbs (remember, forget, recall), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes), and seo_referring_domains breaks the seo_backlinks_* family pattern, so the overall scheme is readable but inconsistent.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is over the 25+ 'too many' threshold even for a broad platform, and the mismatch is far worse given the server is named 'Seo Backlinks' — only 5 of 36 tools actually serve that purpose. The other 31 tools (Pipeworx research, Polymarket betting, memory, subscriptions) belong to a different scope entirely, making the set feel bloated and mislabeled.

Completeness3/5

The five genuine backlink tools cover a single-domain audit well (summary, list, anchors, referring domains, history), but they lack standard SEO workflows like multi-domain or competitor backlink comparison, and there is no tool connecting backlink data to the AI-visibility audit tools. The surrounding Pipeworx surface is extensive, but it belongs to a different domain than the server's stated purpose.

Resources