Skip to main content
Glama

trivia

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it 'walks the ladder', returns specific fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp), handles partial fills, and flags forced directional risk. The risk of unhedged positions is disclosed. 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 dense and long, but every sentence carries operational value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then systematically covers modes, parameters, outputs, and usage guidance. Minor deduction for being a wall of text; structured headings or bullet lists would improve scannability, but the content is appropriately detailed for such a complex tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain return values, and it does: single-market returns top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, max_fillable_usd, and a verdict; basket returns theoretical_sum, realizable_sum, capture_ratio, profit_usd, per-leg detail, thin_legs[], max_clean_notional_usd, and forced_directional_risk. It also contextualizes usage against sibling tools and warns about partial-fill risk, making it complete for an AI agent.

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 elevates parameter understanding by explaining mode-dependent semantics: size_usd is 'max spend on buys, target proceeds on sells' in single-market vs 'settlement notional S (shares per leg)' in basket; side defaults and auto-detection are clarified; and clamps are mentioned. This adds meaning well 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 opens with a crisp verb+resource: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It clearly distinguishes the tool's function (checking fill risk) from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_edges, and further delineates single-market vs basket modes.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also names the alternative tools and explains the risk scenario (partial basket fills converting to directional positions), making when-to-use and when-not-to-use clear.

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

All trivia 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

Several tools have notably unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, and polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and bet_research heavily overlap in surfacing betting opportunities. Entity_profile, recent_changes, and compare_entities also share overlapping research scope, making misselection likely.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names use snake_case and a roughly readable verb_noun style (resolve_entity, compare_entities, list_categories), but conventions vary: some are bare nouns (entity_profile), some are plain verbs (remember, forget), and ask_pipeworx/pipeworx_* break the pattern. It is readable overall, but not a consistent scheme.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is far more than the 'trivia' name implies, and most of them (Pipeworx research, Polymarket analysis, memory, subscriptions) are unrelated to trivia. The set reads as an entire platform bundled together rather than a purpose-scoped server.

Completeness2/5

For the stated trivia purpose, the surface is missing core lifecycle features like quiz sessions, answer validation, or scoring; the few trivia tools are just category/reference lookups. As a general data/research server it is broad, but there are significant gaps and no coherent domain model tying the tools together.

Resources