Skip to main content
Glama

Tax Regulations

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.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: trending_scan defaults, partition placeholder filtering, Jaccard similarity threshold, fill_check against live CLOB depth, and the explicit do-not-trade condition when realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0. No contradiction 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 long but densely packed with unique information, and it uses labeled sections (SEMANTIC ANCHOR, PARTITION FILTER, FILL CHECK) to organize behavioral caveats. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and mode selection. Some minor redundancy (e.g., re-explaining partition_check) prevents a perfect score, but every section earns its place.

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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates by spelling out the response shape (opportunities[], gap_pp, suggested_trade, reasoning, monotonicity violation context, partition_check fields). It covers edge cases (placeholder slugs, low similarity, thin_legs, trade viability) and directs users to polymarket_fill_risk for sizing, making the tool fully usable from the description alone.

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% and both parameters already have clear descriptions. The description adds value beyond schema by providing concrete examples (e.g., 'fed-decision-may-2026', 'Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal'), noting that full Polymarket URLs are accepted for event, and explaining the behavioral consequences of choosing each parameter. This is a meaningful enhancement over the schema but not radically new.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource+method: 'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks.' It names distinct modes (event, topic, trending_scan) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_fill_risk by defining its fill_check role and explicitly deferring custom sizing to that sibling.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Call with NO args' for trending scan, 'event (recommended for a specific market)' with slug examples, and 'topic (for cross-event scanning)' with seed question examples. It also names an alternative ('For custom sizing use polymarket_fill_risk') and explains what cross-event mode catches that single-event misses.

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

All Tax Regulations 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

Many tools overlap in purpose: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are identical, while ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve as query/entry-point tools. The two tax-specific tools are distinct, but the sheer number of generic data-access tools makes it difficult for an agent to select the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of snake_case (ask_pipeworx, tax_search), camelCase (ask_pipeworx_beta, compare_entities, discover_tools), and inconsistent verb styles (resolve_entity vs entity_profile vs scan_competitor_ai_presence). No clear pattern is discernible.

Tool Count1/5

The server is named 'Tax Regulations' but only 2 of 33 tools are tax-related. The other 31 tools are unrelated Pipeworx data-access, memory, subscription, and Polymarket tools, making the count wildly excessive and mismatched with the apparent purpose.

Completeness3/5

For the tax regulation domain, tax_search and tax_regulation cover keyword discovery and full-text retrieval, which is a functional core. However, the set lacks any other tax-specific operations (e.g., updates, comparisons, planning), and the majority of the tool surface is irrelevant to the stated server purpose, leaving notable gaps for an agent expecting a coherent tax toolset.

Resources