Skip to main content
Glama

superhero

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even with annotations declaring readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it walks the ladder, returns specific metrics (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, etc.), warns about partial basket fills converting an arb into an unhedged directional position, and names the dominant loss mode. No contradictions.

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?

Although long, the description is densely structured: it splits modes, enumerates return fields per mode, and includes a risk warning. Every sentence contributes operational knowledge — no redundant or filler text. The purpose is front-loaded, and the length 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?

This complex tool has no output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating all return values for both modes, detailing parameter interpretations, risk caveats, and explicit links to sibling tools. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly and interpret results without additional documentation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds crucial meaning: size_usd is explained differently for single-market (max spend on buys, target proceeds on sells) versus basket (settlement notional, shares per leg), includes default and clamp behavior, and clarifies side semantics for both modes. These enrich the schema-led parameter 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 opens with a precise definition: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It clearly identifies the verb 'check' and the resource 'edge vs order-book depth,' and differentiates itself from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by focusing on fill-risk validation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also explains the limitation of thin books and the risk of partial fills, providing clear context and alternative tools.

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

All superhero 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The tool set is dominated by a huge number of unrelated tools for data lookup (Pipeworx, Polymarket, etc.), with only 4 superhero-specific tools. Many tools serve overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, deep_research, suggest_questions all handle general queries), making it very difficult for an agent to distinguish the right tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are highly inconsistent: some tools use CamelCase (ask_pipeworx, discover_tools), others use snake_case (get_hero, list_all, compare_entities), and some use long descriptive phrases (polymarket_arbitrage, scan_competitor_ai_presence). This mixture makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 34 tools, the count is far too large for a server named 'superhero'. Most tools are unrelated to superheroes, making the set seem bloated and misaligned with the server's stated purpose. A focused superhero server would need at most 10 tools.

Completeness1/5

For the superhero domain, the tool set is severely incomplete: only basic retrieval of heroes and powerstats, with no search, filtering, creation, comparison, or battle mechanisms. For the broader data access domain it is more complete, but that is not the server's name.

Resources