Skip to main content
Glama

Take The Meeting

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description goes far beyond by explaining the internal algorithms (monotonicity, partition-sum checks, Jaccard similarity filter, placeholder filter) and the fill check process. It discloses behavioral traits like response structure and trade signals, adding significant context 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 (4 paragraphs) but well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. It contains dense, valuable information. Some redundancy could be trimmed, but every sentence contributes to explaining the tool's complex behavior.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description adequately covers return values (opportunities array with fields like gap_pp, suggested_trade, reasoning) and mentions fill check behavior. It provides sufficient completeness for an AI to understand usage and output, though exact field types are not detailed.

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% with both parameters having clear descriptions. The tool description adds extra semantics (e.g., that event accepts full URLs, topic uses seed questions, and how each mode works), enhancing understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It specifies three modes (no args, event, topic) and what each does. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'polymarket_edges', the purpose is distinct and clearly articulated.

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 provides explicit usage guidance for each mode, including recommendations (e.g., 'event (recommended for a specific market)') and explanations of when cross-event mode is beneficial. It also warns when not to trade (realizable_edge_pp <= 0) and references polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing, offering comprehensive when-to-use and when-not-to-use information.

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

All Take The Meeting 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct, well-documented roles, but the set includes two effectively identical routers (ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta, with the latter explicitly matching the former right now) and a dense cluster of six Polymarket tools that an agent must read carefully to choose among. This is more than a minor overlap, though the detailed descriptions prevent it from being complete chaos.

Naming Consistency3/5

Everything is snake_case, which is a plus, but the patterns are inconsistent: some tools are verb_noun (resolve_entity, validate_claim, list_subscriptions), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, bet_research, recent_alerts), some use brand prefixes (ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), and take_the_meeting_evaluate is a sentence-like outlier. The prefixes do provide grouping, but the naming doesn't give a predictable action structure.

Tool Count2/5

32 top-level tools is above the 25+ threshold and will bloat an agent's tool-selection surface, especially because the server name 'Take The Meeting' suggests a narrow meeting tool while 31 of the tools are unrelated Pipeworx/data features. Even as a broad data-research server, several tools could be collapsed (the ask variants, the Polymarket family), so the count feels inflated.

Completeness2/5

For the purpose implied by the server name and the lone meeting tool, the surface is severely incomplete: there is no way to list or fetch meetings, access calendar/attendee context, or do anything beyond evaluating one set of supplied parameters. For the broad data-research domain that most tools actually serve, the read/research side is rich, but that is a completely different purpose from 'Take The Meeting', leaving the meeting feature as a disconnected dead end.

Resources