Skip to main content
Glama

Worms

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds rich behavioral details: walks the ladder, returns specific fields, warns about forced directional risk, and explains partial fill risks. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is comprehensive but verbose (nearly 300 words). While well-structured and front-loaded with purpose, it could be more concise by trimming redundant explanations. Still functional but not maximally efficient.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains return values for both modes, including risk indicators like thin_legs and forced_directional_risk. It covers all necessary context for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining default values, clamp ranges, mode-dependent side behavior, and interpretation of size_usd (max spend vs target proceeds), justifying an above-baseline score.

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 it's a realizable-vs-theoretical edge check, specifies two modes (single-market and basket), and directly links its use to sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges, differentiating it effectively.

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 required parameters (market or event), gives clear when-to-use instructions (before arbitrage signals or trades above $500), and explains consequences of not using it (theoretical overround uncapturable, partial fills create directional risk).

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

All Worms 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have functionally overlapping purposes, most notably ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta, which currently behave identically. The many prediction-market tools are each distinct but still leave boundaries that require careful reading, and the query/research tools (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, potentially validate_claim) have an ease of being confused. Fine verbal descriptions reduce but do not eliminate the ambiguity for an agent.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and many follow a verb_noun pattern, such as resolve_entity, get_classification, and list_subscriptions. However, the set is inconsistent overall: it mixes single verbs (remember, forget, subscribe), noun-style names (entity_profile, recent_alerts), and several prefixed families (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). It's readable but not a coherent, uniformly applied convention throughout.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools in one server is well beyond the generally well-scoped 3–15 range. The server appears to bundle several unrelated domains together—WoRMS taxonomy, Pipeworx data research, Polymarket analysis, memory utilities, and subscriptions—creating avoidable cognitive load and making selection more difficult. Splitting into targeted servers would greatly improve the interface.

Completeness2/5

The server is named 'Worms' and includes a WoRMS taxonomy subdomain, but that subdomain only supports searching, classification, and common names—the rest of the marine taxonomy surface is missing (e.g., direct AphiaID record lookup, distributions, synonyms, hierarchical children). The remainder of the tools serve an entirely different data-research purpose, so the server is incomplete relative to its name AND the bundled extra domains add confusion rather than a coherent cohesive coverage.

Resources