Skip to main content
Glama

Ship On Friday

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 already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context: it walks the order book ladder, checks against live depth, identifies forced directional risk, and warns that partial basket fills convert an arb into an unhedged position. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then breaks into well-structured sections for single-market and basket modes. Although it is detailed, every sentence adds value, and the use of bold headers aids readability. It trades some brevity for completeness, which is justified by the tool's 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?

Given no output schema, the description lists all returned fields for both modes, including verdicts and risk indicators. It covers the complete semantics: single-market returns fill details and slippage; basket returns aggregate and per-leg information along with forced directional risk. This allows the agent to fully understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, but the description enriches parameter meaning beyond the schema. For example, it explains how size_usd is interpreted differently for buys vs. sells and how basket mode uses settlement notional. The description also clarifies the auto-detection logic for side in basket mode. While helpful, it does not cover every edge case, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 starts with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It then details two modes (single-market and basket) with distinct behaviors, distinguishing it from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges. The purpose is unambiguous and well-defined.

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 says 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also explains why (theoretical overround not capturable, partial fills create directional risk), effectively directing the agent away from inappropriate use.

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