Skip to main content
Glama

Trakt

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds significant behavioral context: returns verdict (clean|degraded|cannot_fill), per-leg fill details, thin legs, and warns about forced directional risk. 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is lengthy and dense, covering many details. It is structured with sections (SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET) but could be more concise. Some sentences are verbose (e.g., 'the dominant loss mode in real arb-bot P&L'). Still well-organized, but not maximally efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly documents return fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc.) and explains both modes. It covers risk warnings and usage context. Minor omission: error handling for invalid slugs/URLs is not described.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: explains the dual interpretation of size_usd (max spend vs target proceeds for single-market; settlement notional for basket), default side logic for basket, and parameter relationships. Provides concrete usage details.

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. It distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, and explicitly references sibling tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges) to show differentiation.

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 guidance: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. Explains the risk of partial fills converting arb into directional positions, helping the agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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

All Trakt 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
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set has significant overlap among query and research tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research) and among entity/company tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes). Despite detailed descriptions, an agent would struggle to select the correct tool without careful reading, especially for nuanced differences.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool naming is inconsistent: some start with verbs (ask_, generate_, validate_, scan_, subscribe) while others are nouns (entity_profile, popular, trending, search, recent_alerts, recent_changes). The snake_case style is consistent, but the verb_noun pattern is not, making predictions of tool names difficult.

Tool Count3/5

38 tools is on the high side for a single server, but the scope is broad (general query, research, Trakt, subscriptions, memory). The count is appropriate for the wide range of functionality, though some tools could be merged to reduce cognitive load.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a very wide range of tasks: querying, research, entity profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, memory, Trakt operations, etc. For the Trakt domain, it has all essential operations (search, get, list, trending). The Pipeworx side has a comprehensive set for data access, grounding, and validation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update for subscriptions), but overall it is well-covered.

Resources