Skip to main content
Glama

words

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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant behavioral context by detailing the output fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, verdict), explaining the ladder walk, and warning about partial basket fills converting arbitrage into unhedged directional positions. It could mention error handling or rate limits, but it adds substantial value beyond annotations.

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 every sentence carries functional detail. It is well-structured with explicit mode labels and ALL CAPS keywords, making it scannable. The length is justified by the tool's dual-mode complexity, though it could be slightly tightened without losing information.

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 having no output schema, the description fully enumerates the return fields for both modes, including edge cases like thin_legs[] and forced_directional_risk. It also provides usage thresholds and risk warnings, making it complete for an AI agent to decide and invoke the tool appropriately.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful interpretation: size_usd is 'max spend on buys, target proceeds on sells' in single-market mode and 'settlement notional S (shares per leg)' in basket mode. It also clarifies side defaults and auto behavior in basket mode, which enriches the schema description.

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 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth', which precisely defines the tool's purpose. It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly referencing polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges, making its unique role clear.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also explains the two modes and their triggers, giving clear alternatives and context.

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

All words 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap between query tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, and between prediction market tools like bet_research and polymarket_edges. Descriptions help differentiate, but the boundaries are not always clear.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are all snake_case but lack a consistent pattern. Some start with verbs (ask, compare, find), others are nouns (autocomplete, entity_profile), and many are long phrases (ask_pipeworx_grounded, scan_competitor_ai_presence). The naming feels ad-hoc and not easy to predict.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, this server is over-packed for a server named 'words'. Many tools are unrelated to words (e.g., prediction markets, subscriptions, entity profiles). The scope is too broad, making it feel like a catch-all rather than a coherent set.

Completeness3/5

The word tools are limited (only 6), leaving obvious gaps for a word-focused server (e.g., no dictionary lookup, no word definitions). However, the server covers a wide range of data domains through meta-tools like ask_pipeworx, which compensates but makes the purpose unclear.

Resources