Skip to main content
Glama

Ship On Friday

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Polymarket Arbitrage

polymarket_arbitrage
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks. Call with NO args for a trending_scan of the top ~200 markets by weekly volume; pass event for the strongest per-event partition_check, or topic for a themed cross-event scan. event (recommended for a specific market): pass a Polymarket event slug like "fed-decision-may-2026" or "when-will-bitcoin-hit-150k"; walks child markets, checks date-axis / threshold-axis ordering AND computes the partition_check (sum of YES prices across mutually-exclusive legs — should ≈1; deviations >3pp emit a BUY/SELL EVERY LEG signal). topic (for cross-event scanning): pass a seed question like "Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal" or "Fed rate decision"; searches related events across the platform, flattens markets, runs the comparator on the union. Cross-event mode catches "...by May 31" vs "...by Jun 30" patterns that single-event misses. SEMANTIC ANCHOR: cross-event pairs require ≥0.30 Jaccard similarity on question tokens (prevents Powell-Fed-Pause being paired with Powell-DOJ-probe); skipped_low_similarity surfaces the rejected pair count. PARTITION FILTER: drops will-person-X / will-manager-Y / will-someone-else- placeholder slugs; partitions with >20% placeholder fraction return null arb signal. Response: opportunities[] (gap_pp, suggested_trade, reasoning, monotonicity violation context), and in event mode partition_check{sum_yes_prices, gap_from_1, placeholders_filtered, suggested_trade}. FILL CHECK: when the partition signal fires, arbitrage.fill_check prices it against live CLOB depth (theoretical_edge_pp_at_book vs realizable_edge_pp at 1000 shares/leg, thin_legs[]) — realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0 means the overround exists only at last-trade, not in the book; do not trade it. For custom sizing use polymarket_fill_risk.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eventNoSingle-event mode (use this if you know the specific Polymarket event): event slug like "fed-decision-may-2026" or "when-will-bitcoin-hit-150k". Full Polymarket URLs also accepted.
topicNoCross-event mode (use this if you want to scan related events across the platform): a topic or seed question like "Fed rate decision" or "Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal". Tool searches Polymarket for related events and checks monotonicity across them.

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, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds extensive behavioral context: semantic anchor (Jaccard similarity ≥0.30), partition filter (placeholder rejection), fill check against live CLOB depth, and response structure. No contradictions with annotations. This extra transparency justifies a 5.

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 relatively long and dense, but it is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses clear sections (mode explanations, semantic anchor, partition filter, fill check). Given the complexity of the tool, the length is justified, though some sentences could be shortened. Still very well-structured, so a 4.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the response structure: opportunities array with gap_pp, suggested_trade, reasoning, monotonicity context, and for event mode, partition_check details. It also covers fill check behavior. The description is self-contained and complete for an agent to use correctly, earning a 5.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds significant meaning: event accepts slugs or full URLs, topic is a seed question with examples. It explains how each parameter affects the tool's behavior (single-event vs cross-event). This adds value beyond the schema, earning a 5.

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 finds arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes three modes: no args for trending scan, event for specific market, and topic for cross-event scan. This specificity and differentiation from sibling tools earns a 5.

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 explicitly tells when to use each parameter: no args for trending scan, event for a specific market (recommended), topic for cross-event scanning. It explains the benefits of cross-event mode and warns about partition filter and fill check conditions. This provides clear usage guidance with exclusions and alternatives, earning a 5.

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

All Ship On Friday 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among data query tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes. However, detailed descriptions and different use cases help an agent distinguish them, so it is mostly clear.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent lower_snake_case pattern with a verb_noun style (e.g., ask_pipeworx, list_subscriptions, validate_claim). There are no mixed conventions, making it predictable and easy to understand.

Tool Count4/5

With 31 tools, the server covers a broad domain of data queries, prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions. While slightly more than typical, each tool earns its place and the count is reasonable for the comprehensive platform scope.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is extensive, covering data querying, analysis, entity resolution, comparison, change tracking, memory, subscriptions, and more. There are no obvious gaps; it supports a wide range of user intents for the server's purpose.

Resources