Skip to main content
Glama

Uk Gazette

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=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe and non-mutative. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it walks the ladder, returns specific fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc.), and explains the dominant loss mode. No contradictions 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 well-structured with clear sections for single-market and basket modes. It front-loads the purpose and uses capitalization for emphasis. Every sentence provides necessary detail; however, it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 complexity of the tool (two modes, no output schema), the description covers all necessary details: return fields for both modes, default behaviors, edge cases like thin legs and forced directional risk. It fully prepares the agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains how size_usd is interpreted differently in single-market (spend or target proceeds) vs basket (settlement notional), and that side defaults to auto in basket mode. This additional context is valuable.

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 with specific details. It uses specific verbs and resources, differentiating it from siblings 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 tells 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 also explains when not to use it implicitly by warning about partial basket fills converting arb into unhedged directional positions, providing strong guidance.

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

All Uk Gazette 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 have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded all serve similar query routing). Tools from unrelated domains (UK Gazette, Polymarket betting, AI visibility checks) are mixed together, making it hard for an agent to distinguish which tool to use for a given task.

Naming Consistency1/5

Naming is chaotic: some tools use descriptive phrases with underscores (gazette_deceased_estates, polymarket_arbitrage), others use generic verbs (remember, recall, forget), and some include version or mode indicators (ask_pipeworx_beta, scan_competitor_ai_presence). No consistent pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the server is overstuffed for its purported focus on the UK Gazette. The majority of tools (Polymarket, Pipeworx general, AI visibility, etc.) are unrelated to the server's name, making it feel like a bundling of many services into one, which is excessive for a coherent tool set.

Completeness2/5

For a server named 'Uk Gazette', there are only a handful of Gazette-specific tools (gazette_search_notices, gazette_insolvency_notices, etc.), while the rest cover unrelated domains. This leaves obvious gaps for Gazette-related tasks (e.g., no tool for searching particular notice types or filtering by edition), despite the large tool count.

Resources