Skip to main content
Glama

Stocktwits

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: walking the order book ladder, returning specific metrics (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage, etc.), and disclosing the risk of forced directional risk in basket mode. No contradictions with 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 detailed and well-structured with bold headers for single-market and basket modes. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds critical information. It could be shortened slightly without loss, but it remains effective.

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 lacking an output schema, the description fully enumerates return fields for both modes (e.g., top_of_book, profit_usd, thin_legs, forced_directional_risk). It covers the tool's complexity, including edge cases like partial fills and unhedged positions, making it complete for an agent to invoke 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% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the dual modes (market vs event), default behaviors (like auto side detection for baskets), and interpretation of size_usd (settlement notional for baskets). This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 explicitly states it is a 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' and distinguishes between two modes (single-market and basket). It differentiates from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by advising use before acting on their signals, clearly specifying the tool's purpose and scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use the tool: before acting on polymarket_arbitrage signals or polymarket_edges trades above ~$500. It warns of risks like partial basket fills causing unhedged directional positions. While it does not exhaustively list when not to use, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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

All Stocktwits 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools serve overlapping functions: three ask_pipeworx variants, two deep research tools, and multiple polymarket tools. StockTwits-specific tools are distinct but the overall set has significant ambiguity between Pipeworx and Polymarket tools.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming styles are mixed: some use lowercase (ask_pipeworx), some use underscores (ai_visibility_check), and some use prefixes (pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage). No consistent pattern across the tool set.

Tool Count3/5

40 tools is on the higher end but not extreme. However, many tools belong to the Pipeworx ecosystem, which seems separate from StockTwits, making the set feel bloated and unfocused for a single server.

Completeness2/5

StockTwits social features are adequately covered (symbol search, streams, trending), but the inclusion of Pipeworx tools creates a sprawling surface without complete coverage in any one domain. Missing core StockTwits features like user profiles or direct messaging.

Resources