Skip to main content
Glama

Useragent

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already indicate safety. Description adds rich behavioral details: it walks the ladder, returns specific fields like top_of_book, slippage, verdict, forced_directional_risk, and clamping of size_usd. No contradictions.

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?

Description is verbose but well-structured with all-caps keywords (REQUIRES, SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET) to improve scannability. Every sentence adds value; however, it could be slightly more concise using bullet points.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly documents return fields for both modes (single-market: 6 fields; basket: 7 fields including per-leg detail and thin_legs). It also covers edge cases like partial fills and forced directional risk, making it fully self-contained.

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% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. Description adds extra context: explains size_usd differs between single-market (USD spend/proceeds) and basket (settlement notional per leg), provides defaults and clamp range. This goes beyond 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?

Description clearly defines the tool as a realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live order-book depth, with explicit mention of single-market and basket modes. It distinguishes from siblings by stating it should be used before acting on polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_edges 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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: before any polymarket_arbitrage sell/buy-every-leg signal or polymarket_edges trade above ~$500. It also explains consequences of not using it (unhedged directional position). While it doesn't state when not to use, the context is clear.

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

All Useragent 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all perform overlapping routed-search functions; ask_pipeworx_beta is even documented as currently identical to ask_pipeworx. The three Polymarket discovery tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk) also have blurry boundaries around finding vs. validating vs. executing on edges.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tools use snake_case with a verb_noun or descriptive pattern (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim, resolve_entity, list_subscriptions). Minor deviations exist — bare verbs like remember/recall/forget and noun_first names like bet_research or entity_profile — but the convention is largely predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is heavy, and the set spans unrelated domains: Pipeworx data routing, prediction-market trading, agent memory, subscription management, npm dependency checks, user-agent parsing, and llms.txt generation. The sub-clusters each earn their place individually, but as a single server surface the count is unjustifiably large and scattershot.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx research surface is quite complete (lookup, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, validation, entity resolution, discovery, feedback), and memory/subscription lifecycles are fully covered. However, the server has no coherent single domain — user-agent parsing (the server's namesake) has only one tool, while unrelated utilities like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency appear with no supporting ecosystem.

Resources