Skip to main content
Glama

wikiviews

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "event"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "topic"
-    ]
-  }
-]
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "event"
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "topic"
+    ]
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / event / description
      Previous value: -"Single-event mode: Polymarket event slug (e.g. \"when-will-bitcoin-hit-150k\") or full URL."New value: +"Single-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."
    • changedInput schema / properties / topic / description
      Previous value: -"Cross-event mode: a topic or seed question. Tool searches Polymarket for related markets across separate events and checks monotonicity across them. E.g. \"Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal\"."New value: +"Cross-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."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description enriches behavioral understanding significantly. It discloses concrete thresholds (deviation >3pp triggers signals), internal filters (placeholders, Jaccard ≥0.30), and the fill-check workflow against live CLOB depth. It also explicitly warns that realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0 means the edge is not realizable in the book. This goes far beyond what annotations convey and aligns with them without contradiction.

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 and dense, but it is well-structured with semantic labels (SEMANTIC ANCHOR, PARTITION FILTER, FILL CHECK) and clear mode breakdowns. Every clause delivers useful operational detail, so it earns its length. The only reason it doesn't get a 5 is that it could be slightly tighter; some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating partition check examples), but the organization mitigates the length issue.

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 tool's complexity, two optional parameters, lack of an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It specifies the exact response structure (opportunities[] with fields, partition_check object with fields), the market scope (~200 top markets by weekly volume), the notion of overround at book versus last-trade, and how to handle signals. No important operational aspect is left unexplained.

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% and each parameter already has a description, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds substantial semantic depth beyond the schema: it explains what 'event' mode does (walks child markets, checks date-axis/threshold-axis ordering) and what 'topic' mode does (searches related events, flattens markets, runs comparator on union). It also provides concrete examples of valid slugs and seed questions. This elevates parameter understanding well above the schema alone.

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 opens with a specific and actionable verb-plus-resource statement: 'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks.' It clearly identifies the tool's unique method and differentiates it from sibling tools by detailing three distinct modes (trending_scan, event, topic), each with concrete use cases. This is far more than a tautology and explicitly distinguishes what this tool does relative to other Polymarket-related siblings.

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 mode: 'Call with NO args for a trending_scan... pass event... or topic' and then elaborates on the benefits of cross-event mode over single-event mode. It also directs users to a sibling tool ('For custom sizing use polymarket_fill_risk') and tells them when not to trade based on fill check results ('do not trade it'). This is a model of usage clarity and alternative differentiation.

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

All wikiviews 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
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from Wikipedia page views to AI visibility checks, entity resolution, and Polymarket betting. No two tools appear overlapping in functionality; descriptions further clarify each tool's unique role.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with clear verb_noun structure (e.g., get_article_views, subscribe, resolve_entity). No mixing of conventions, and names are descriptive enough to infer purpose.

Tool Count2/5

With 33 tools, the server is overloaded for its name 'wikiviews', which suggests a focused Wikipedia views tool. The set includes unrelated functionality like Polymarket arbitrage, memory storage, and Pipeworx data queries, making the scope feel excessive.

Completeness2/5

For the core domain of Wikipedia views, only 3 tools exist (get_article_views, get_project_views, get_top_articles), missing basic operations like list_articles_per_day. The unrelated tools are extensive, but the server's stated purpose is poorly served.

Resources