Skip to main content
Glama

Shodan Internetdb

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details like walking the order book ladder, returning fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp), and warnings about forced directional risk and thin legs. While not missing, it adds value beyond 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?

The description is lengthy but well-structured with bold headers for sections, front-loaded purpose, and no redundant sentences. Every sentence adds necessary context for a complex two-mode tool. Slightly verbose but justified by complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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 key return fields for both modes, explains the logic, and warns about pitfalls. It covers both single-market and basket modes comprehensively, though missing explicit error handling or edge cases. Still highly complete for agent invocation.

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%, but the tool description provides additional context for size_usd (interpretation difference between single-market and basket), side defaults, and the distinction between market and event parameters, which enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 it performs a 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, and explicitly positions itself as a pre-action check for sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges, which sets it apart.

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 states 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500' and explains why partial fills convert arbs into directional risk, providing clear when-to-use guidance and reasoning.

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

All Shodan Internetdb 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research both answer grounded research questions, and bet_research, polymarket_edges, and polymarket_arbitrage all surface prediction-market opportunities. Long descriptions help, but the overlap creates real misselection risk, especially between the ask_pipeworx variants.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear lowercase snake_case verb_noun or domain_verb pattern (lookup_ip, resolve_entity, validate_claim, list_subscriptions, generate_llms_txt). There are minor deviations like noun-first names (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending) and product-branded verbs (ask_pipeworx), but the overall style is consistent enough to predict behavior.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is well over the 25-tool threshold where a tool set becomes hard to navigate, and the server named 'Shodan Internetdb' carries only one Shodan-related tool among dozens of Pipeworx, Polymarket, memory, and utility tools. The count reflects scope sprawl rather than a focused, coherent surface.

Completeness3/5

The broader inferred domain (structured data lookup, entity research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions) is covered surprisingly well, with lifecycle tools for subscriptions and memory. However, there are notable gaps: no tool to fetch a pipeworx:// citation URI directly, no equivalent scan coverage for non-NPM ecosystems despite mentioning them, and the Shodan surface is minimal relative to the server name.

Resources