Skip to main content
Glama

Weather Gc Ca

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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: walks the ladder, returns specific fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, etc.), and warns about forced_directional_risk. No contradiction; description supplements annotations effectively.

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: summary, required parameters, single-market mode, basket mode. It is front-loaded with purpose. Some redundancy exists (e.g., explaining basket mode twice), but given the complexity (two modes, many return fields), it remains fairly concise. Minor trimming could improve, but overall adequate.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain return values, which it does thoroughly for both modes (e.g., top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, per-leg fill detail, thin_legs, forced_directional_risk). It also explains the rationale behind the tool (avoiding partial fills and unhedged positions). For a complex risk-check tool, the description is complete.

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 each parameter described. The description adds contextual semantics: for size_usd clarifies 'max spend on buys, target proceeds on sells' and for side explains default/auto in basket mode. This adds value beyond the schema descriptions, justifying above baseline 3.

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.' It distinguishes between single-market and basket modes and contrasts with sibling tools by implying it should be used before acting on arbitrage or edge signals. The purpose is specific and well-defined.

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 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 explains why (theoretical overround not capturable on thin books, partial fills convert arb to unhedged direction). This is excellent context for when to use the tool.

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

All Weather Gc Ca 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

Many tools have distinct purposes (e.g., current_observations vs. climate_daily), but several query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research) overlap in function, all routing questions to a large tool catalog. This can confuse an agent about which to use.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are snake_case but follow no consistent pattern: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx), some noun_adjective (climate_daily), others compound (ai_visibility_check). The mix is readable but not predictable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is high for a server named 'Weather Gc Ca', which implies a focused weather service. Many tools are unrelated to weather (Polymarket, SEC, FDA, etc.), making the count inflated and mismatched to the server's apparent scope.

Completeness2/5

For weather, the server covers alerts, current observations, and climate records but lacks forecasts, radar, satellite imagery, and station listings. While the broader Pipeworx catalog is extensive, the weather-specific surface is incomplete for a dedicated weather tool.

Resources