Skip to main content
Glama

Statec Lu

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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond by detailing operational behavior: 'walks the ladder', mode requirements, and the risk of partial basket fills converting an arb into directional exposure. This enriches the behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Though long, the description is well-structured and information-dense. It front-loads the purpose, then clearly partitions single-market and basket modes, lists outputs, and finishes with usage guidance. Every sentence adds specific value, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating return values for both modes (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, capture_ratio, thin_legs, etc.). It also covers defaults, clamps, mode selection, and risk implications, making the tool's behavior and expected outcomes fully transparent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for all four parameters, so the schema already explains side, event, market, and size_usd semantics. The description adds mode-conditional interpretation (single vs basket) and the 'REQUIRES one of market or event' constraint, but most parameter meaning is repeated from the schema, limiting additional value.

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 a specific verb 'check' against 'live CLOB order-book depth' and defines the tool's purpose: assessing realizable-vs-theoretical edge. It explicitly differentiates single-market vs basket modes and references sibling tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges) as the use context, removing ambiguity about its role.

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?

Provides explicit, actionable guidance: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also explains why (theoretical overround on thin books is not capturable) and warns about partial basket fills creating unhedged directional risk, which effectively conveys when and why to use it.

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

All Statec Lu 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have blurry boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical (beta is explicitly 'exactly' the stable version), and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence is a single-vs-batch duplicate. The six polymarket_* tools are differentiated by long descriptions, but their overlapping concerns (edges, arbitrage, fill risk, spread) would frequently misroute an agent, and discover_tools vs suggest_questions also compete.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names follow two coexisting conventions: verb_noun for actions (get_data, resolve_entity, validate_claim) and domain-prefixed families (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, ask_pipeworx_*). Within each family the pattern is consistent, but mixing the two styles across the set, plus outliers like generate_llms_txt and bare verbs (remember, forget, recall), makes the overall scheme feel uneven though still readable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well past the 'heavy' threshold and the count is not justified by the server's stated identity: a server named 'Statec Lu' (Luxembourg statistics) contains only 3 STATEC tools buried among general data-platform, prediction-market, AI-visibility, npm-scanning, and memory utilities. The sprawling, multi-domain surface would be more coherent split into separate servers.

Completeness3/5

The STATEC subset is complete (list_dataflows → dataflow_structure → get_data forms a full browse/fetch lifecycle), and the broader research surface covers entity resolution, grounded answers, comparison, claim verification, and subscription/alert/memory management. However, the overall domain is incoherent—a STATEC server missing nothing for statistics but carrying 31 unrelated tools—and there are notable gaps such as no tool to directly fetch a pipeworx:// citation URI and no execution side for the extensive Polymarket analysis tools.

Resources