Skip to main content
Glama

Dwds

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) by detailing behavioral traits: monotonicity checks, partition-sum checks, semantic similarity filters, partition placeholder filtering, fill check against live CLOB depth. It explains when signals are not actionable. No contradiction 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is detailed but remains focused and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, covering modes, filters, and output. Slightly verbose but justified by complexity. Could be structured with bullet points but clear as is.

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 the response structure (opportunities[], partition_check, fill check) and edge cases (low similarity, partition filter, fill check). It also points to polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing, making it self-contained for agent decision.

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?

The input schema descriptions are complemented by extensive additional context: examples of event slugs and seed questions, explanations of each mode's purpose, and recommendations. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, especially given 100% schema description coverage.

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 finds arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket using monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It specifies two modes (trending scan, event-specific, cross-event) and distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_fill_risk. The verb 'Find' and resource 'arbitrage opportunities' are precise.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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 argument: 'Call with NO args for a trending_scan... pass event... or topic'. It recommends event mode for specific markets and explains cross-event mode catches patterns single-event misses. Lacks direct comparison to sibling tools but within the tool it is clear.

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

All Dwds 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical; the Polymarket betting tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.) also overlap. The server name suggests a German dictionary, but most tools are unrelated, causing confusion about the set's focus.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names lack a consistent pattern: some use verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), some noun_noun (ai_visibility_check, dwds_frequency), some single words (forget, lemma), and some are acronyms (kwic). This mixed convention makes prediction of tool names difficult.

Tool Count3/5

At 36 tools, the set is large but not extreme. However, it attempts to cover too many domains (German language, prediction markets, AI visibility, npm packages, etc.), making it feel bloated and unfocused for a server named 'Dwds'.

Completeness2/5

For the German dictionary focus implied by the server name, tools are minimal (dwfs_frequency, lemma, snippet) and two are retired. For the broader data platform, there are gaps like no dedicated SEC filing search tool, relying on generic ask_pipeworx. The set feels incomplete for both intended purposes.

Resources