Skip to main content
Glama

Traject Ecommerce

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?

The description details the tool's behavior beyond annotations: it walks the order book ladder, returns specific fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc.), and warns about forced directional risk and thin legs. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, etc.).

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 well-structured with clear sections (SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET) and uses capitalization for emphasis. It is dense but every sentence adds value; could be slightly more concise but adequate for the 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values for both modes, covers edge cases (thin legs, forced directional risk), and provides examples of verdicts. It is comprehensive for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful context for each parameter: defaults (size_usd=1000), auto-detection for side in basket mode, and differentiation between market and event parameters. This aids understanding beyond the schema.

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's purpose: a realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth. It distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, and uses specific verbs like 'check' and 'walks the ladder'.

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 advises when to use this tool: before acting on polymarket_arbitrage signals or polymarket_edges trades above ~$500. It warns about the dangers of partial fills and uncapturable theoretical overround, and names sibling tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges).

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

All Traject Ecommerce 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, e.g., Amazon and Walmart tools are platform-specific. A few overlapping tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research are differentiated by clear usage guidance, so an agent can disambiguate with reasonable effort.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mix verbs and nouns with varying styles (e.g., ai_visibility_check, compare_entities, scan_competitor_ai_presence). There is no uniform pattern like verb_noun; some are descriptive phrases. The inconsistency is noticeable but not chaotic.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is too many for a server named 'Traject Ecommerce', as many tools cover unrelated domains (Polymarket, npm packages, SEC filings). The scope is excessively broad, making the server feel like a general-purpose plugin rather than a focused ecommerce toolset.

Completeness2/5

For an ecommerce-focused server, it only covers Amazon and Walmart product/search/reviews, missing major platforms and backend operations. The broader tool set is detailed but not ecommerce-specific, leaving obvious gaps for the intended purpose.

Resources