Skip to main content
Glama

Thegamesdb

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant behavioral context: it walks the order book ladder, returns verdicts (clean/degraded/cannot_fill), and for baskets details thin legs and forced directional risk. It warns about partial fills converting arb into unhedged positions, which is beyond the 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 well-structured with mode headers and bullet-style return fields. Every sentence adds value, though some details (e.g., 'each share pays $1') are slightly redundant. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and usage guidance.

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 thoroughly covers return fields for both modes, including top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, profit_usd, thin_legs, and more. It also explains the dominant loss mode, making the tool's outputs and risks comprehensible 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 important context beyond schema descriptions: it explains default size_usd behavior (max spend vs target proceeds), basket size interpretation as settlement notional, and automatic side detection. This enriches the meaning for correct invocation.

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 the tool performs a 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' and distinguishes between single-market and basket modes. It uses specific verbs and resource names, differentiating it from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It explains why, citing the risk of unhedged positions from partial fills. This provides clear context and excludes inappropriate usage.

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

All Thegamesdb 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set contains several tightly overlapping clusters: ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical) vs ask_pipeworx_grounded, five polymarket_* tools with related purposes, and entity_profile vs compare_entities vs recent_changes covering similar company-research ground. The four game tools are distinct but swamped by the unrelated Pipeworx majority, making correct tool selection genuinely difficult.

Naming Consistency2/5

No coherent naming scheme spans the set: snake_case verb_noun (get_game, list_platforms, scan_dependency) coexists with verb_prefix descriptors (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt), domain-prefixed nouns (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending), and bare verbs like recall and forget. Even within the Pipeworx cluster, styles vary unpredictably (ask_pipeworx vs pipeworx_feedback vs scan_competitor_ai_presence).

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is far too many for a server named Thegamesdb, where only 4 of 35 tools relate to the game database at all. The remaining 31 tools constitute a broad Pipeworx data platform with heavy internal overlap, making the surface feel bloated rather than well-scoped.

Completeness2/5

For the declared TheGamesDB domain, coverage is minimal: search, get-by-id, and list genres/platforms, with no per-platform game listings, images/artwork, or updates/refresh functionality. If the true domain is Pipeworx data access, the surface is fairly complete, but as presented under Thegamesdb there are major gaps and a severe identity mismatch.

Resources