Skip to main content
Glama

Squiggle

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "event"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "topic"
-    ]
-  }
-]
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "event"
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "topic"
+    ]
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / event / description
      Previous value: -"Single-event mode: Polymarket event slug (e.g. \"when-will-bitcoin-hit-150k\") or full URL."New value: +"Single-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."
    • changedInput schema / properties / topic / description
      Previous value: -"Cross-event mode: a topic or seed question. Tool searches Polymarket for related markets across separate events and checks monotonicity across them. E.g. \"Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal\"."New value: +"Cross-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."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining internal checks (semantic anchor, partition filter, fill check), algorithm thresholds (e.g., >3pp deviations), and providing actionable advice like 'do not trade it' when realizable edge is ≤0. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 (over 400 words) but uses structured sections (SEMANTIC ANCHOR, PARTITION FILTER, FILL CHECK) and bold key terms, making it scannable. The first sentence conveys the core purpose, and details are organized, though it could be trimmed for faster comprehension by an agent.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple modes, algorithmic checks, fill risk), the description is exceptionally complete. It describes the response structure (opportunities[], partition_check), failure conditions (skipped_low_similarity, placeholders), and even warns against trading on un-realizable edges, all without an output schema.

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?

Both schema parameters already have descriptions, but the tool description adds concrete examples (e.g., 'fed-decision-may-2026') and explains the default mode when no arguments are passed. It also clarifies the behavior of each parameter in the context of the algorithm, which goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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, which is specific to the resource. However, it does not explicitly mention how it differs from sibling tools like polymarket_edges or polymarket_edge_tracker, so differentiation is implicit rather than named.

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 explains when to use each mode: no args for trending_scan, `event` for specific markets (recommended), and `topic` for cross-event scanning. It even names an alternative tool for custom sizing: 'For custom sizing use polymarket_fill_risk.' This provides clear when/alternative guidance.

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

All Squiggle 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools occupy overlapping boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-duplicate query entry points (beta is currently identical), while ladder/standings, ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence, and polymarket_edges/polymarket_arbitrage also blur together. An agent would struggle to reliably pick the right tool without reading very long descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of names are snake_case and many follow a readable verb_noun shape, such as resolve_entity, validate_claim, and list_subscriptions. However, the Squiggle/AFL tools are bare nouns (games, ladder, sources, standings, teams, tips), and the polymarket_* / pipeworx_* prefixes do not use one consistent verb style, so it is not a fully uniform convention.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is in the too-many band, and the sprawl is compounded by mixing unrelated domains under one server: AFL stats, a huge Pipeworx data-routing layer, prediction-market analytics, AI visibility checks, npm dependency review, and llms.txt generation. The set feels like several merged servers rather than one well-scoped MCP.

Completeness3/5

The query/research surface is broad and covers many subdomains, and the subscription lifecycle is reasonably complete with subscribe/list/unsubscribe/recent_alerts. However, pipeworx:// citation URIs are prominently returned but no tool fetches a cited record directly, the AFL side lacks player-level data, and subscriptions cannot be updated.

Resources