Skip to main content
Glama

Unicode

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 adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the tool walks the order book ladder, returns specific fields like top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, and for basket mode includes per-leg fill detail, thin_legs, forced_directional_risk. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint).

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 verbose but well-structured with clear sections for single-market and basket modes, using bold and bullet points. Every sentence adds value, though could be slightly more concise. Still efficient 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?

Completeness is high given the dual-mode complexity and no output schema. The description covers purpose, modes, parameters, return fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, capture_ratio, etc.), and usage context. No gaps evident.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds valuable semantics: explains that size_usd in basket mode is settlement notional (shares per leg), side defaults to auto based on partition sum, and REQUIRES one of market or event. This meaningfully extends the schema descriptions.

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 checks realizable-vs-theoretical edge against live CLOB order-book depth, distinguishing between single-market and basket modes. It differentiates itself from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by specifying this tool is for assessing fill risk before acting on signals.

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: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. It explains why (theoretical overround not capturable on thin books, partial basket fills create directional risk), providing clear when and when-not to use.

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

All Unicode 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
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools overlap significantly: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded serve nearly the same routing purpose, with the beta variant currently identical to the stable one, and deep_research also overlaps for broad research. However, most other tools have clearly distinct functions, and descriptions provide usage guidance, so ambiguity is moderate.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are snake_case and readable, but patterns vary between verb_noun (compare_entities, resolve_entity), noun phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_edges), and bare verbs (remember, subscribe). The pipeworx_ and polymarket_ prefixes are used inconsistently across the set, and the server name 'Unicode' does not align with the tool names.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the server is overloaded for a focused purpose, especially since only three tools relate to Unicode despite the server name. Many Polymarket and Pipeworx tools could be consolidated, and the count exceeds the well-scoped range of 3-15 tools, making the set feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

The server name claims to be about Unicode, but only char_info, escape_string, and unescape_string cover that domain, missing common operations like normalization, case conversion, and encoding validation. For the broader data-access domain the surface is fairly complete, yet there is no tool to fetch a specific pipeworx:// citation URI, leaving cited records unfetchable within the tool set—an obvious gap relative to the stated capabilities.

Resources