Skip to main content
Glama

Walkscore

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Polymarket Arbitrage

polymarket_arbitrage
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks. Call with NO args for a trending_scan of the top ~200 markets by weekly volume; pass event for the strongest per-event partition_check, or topic for a themed cross-event scan. event (recommended for a specific market): pass a Polymarket event slug like "fed-decision-may-2026" or "when-will-bitcoin-hit-150k"; walks child markets, checks date-axis / threshold-axis ordering AND computes the partition_check (sum of YES prices across mutually-exclusive legs — should ≈1; deviations >3pp emit a BUY/SELL EVERY LEG signal). topic (for cross-event scanning): pass a seed question like "Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal" or "Fed rate decision"; searches related events across the platform, flattens markets, runs the comparator on the union. Cross-event mode catches "...by May 31" vs "...by Jun 30" patterns that single-event misses. SEMANTIC ANCHOR: cross-event pairs require ≥0.30 Jaccard similarity on question tokens (prevents Powell-Fed-Pause being paired with Powell-DOJ-probe); skipped_low_similarity surfaces the rejected pair count. PARTITION FILTER: drops will-person-X / will-manager-Y / will-someone-else- placeholder slugs; partitions with >20% placeholder fraction return null arb signal. Response: opportunities[] (gap_pp, suggested_trade, reasoning, monotonicity violation context), and in event mode partition_check{sum_yes_prices, gap_from_1, placeholders_filtered, suggested_trade}. FILL CHECK: when the partition signal fires, arbitrage.fill_check prices it against live CLOB depth (theoretical_edge_pp_at_book vs realizable_edge_pp at 1000 shares/leg, thin_legs[]) — realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0 means the overround exists only at last-trade, not in the book; do not trade it. For custom sizing use polymarket_fill_risk.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eventNoSingle-event mode (use this if you know the specific Polymarket event): event slug like "fed-decision-may-2026" or "when-will-bitcoin-hit-150k". Full Polymarket URLs also accepted.
topicNoCross-event mode (use this if you want to scan related events across the platform): a topic or seed question like "Fed rate decision" or "Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal". Tool searches Polymarket for related events and checks monotonicity across them.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds extensive behavioral context beyond annotations: explains algorithm details (monotonicity checks, partition sum), semantic anchor (Jaccard ≥0.30), partition filter (placeholder slugs), fill check (realizable vs theoretical edge), and cross-reference to polymarket_fill_risk. No contradictions with annotations (readOnlyHint=true aligns with scanning).

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 well-structured with clear sections (SEMANTIC ANCHOR, PARTITION FILTER, FILL CHECK) and contains no wasted sentences. However, it is somewhat verbose (≈300 words) for a tool with only two optional parameters; a slightly more condensed version could improve conciseness without losing value.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple modes, algorithms, filters) and absence of an output schema, the description covers most needed context: input modes, detection logic, filters, fill check, and cross-reference. It briefly describes output fields (opportunities[], partition_check) but could provide more explicit detail on exact return structure for full completeness.

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% (both parameters described), but the description adds significant value: explains behavior with no args (trending_scan), details what 'event' mode does (walks child markets, date-axis/threshold-axis checks, partition_check), and what 'topic' does (cross-event scanning with similarity filter). Also clarifies acceptable input formats (slug or URL).

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's action ('Find arbitrage opportunities'), resource ('on Polymarket'), and method ('via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the unique detection algorithms and explicitly referencing related tools (e.g., polymarket_fill_risk).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each parameter: no args for trending scan, 'event' for specific market (recommended), 'topic' for cross-event scanning. It explains trade-offs (cross-event catches patterns single-event misses) and gives recommendations, making it clear when to use each mode.

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

All Walkscore 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Tools are generally distinct but several clusters (ask_pipeworx family, polymarket family) have highly similar names that could cause confusion. For example, ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded all appear to do similar things with subtle differences. The agent would need to read descriptions carefully to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim). However, a few are single verbs (remember, recall, forget) or have inconsistent suffixes (ask_pipeworx_beta, walkscore_score). This is mostly consistent but not perfectly uniform.

Tool Count3/5

32 tools is quite high, bordering on excessive. While each tool serves a distinct purpose, the sheer number may overwhelm the agent. However, the tools cover a wide range of functionality, so the count is not unreasonable for a comprehensive data platform.

Completeness4/5

The tool set is comprehensive for querying data, conducting research, managing subscriptions, and evaluating bets. It includes meta-tools for discovery and memory. Notable gaps include user account management and direct file handling, but overall coverage is strong.

Resources