Skip to main content
Glama

Ecosystems

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds extensive behavioral context: monotonicity checks, partition sum ≈1, Jaccard similarity >=0.30 for cross-event, placeholder filter, fill check against live CLOB depth, and when not to trade. No contradictions.

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 thoroughly informative but somewhat lengthy, with dense technical detail. It is well-structured with labeled sections for event mode, topic mode, fill check, etc. Minor conciseness improvements possible (e.g., moving threshold details out), but overall effective and front-loaded with purpose.

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 is complex with multiple modes and no output schema. The description provides a near-complete picture of return structure (opportunities[], partition_check with fields, fill check results) and references related tool for sizing. It compensates fully for the lack of output schema with detailed behavioral descriptions.

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 description coverage is 100%, baseline 3. However, the description enriches parameter meaning significantly: explains what each mode does, provides example event slugs and topic seeds, notes that URLs are accepted, and details what outputs (partition_check, fill check) are generated per parameter.

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 via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks'. The verb 'Find' and resource 'arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like polymarket_edges and polymarket_fill_risk by detailing its unique arbitrage detection approach.

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 when to use each calling mode: no args for trending scan, 'event' for single-event partition check, 'topic' for cross-event scanning. It also explains when to avoid trading (realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0) and directs to polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing, providing clear alternatives.

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

All Ecosystems 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

Several tools form tight clusters that are easy to confuse: ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical in routing, and the six polymarket_* tools (edges, arbitrage, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread, bet_research) all operate on prediction markets with overlapping names and purposes. While each has a distinct job, an agent will need to read descriptions very carefully to pick the right one, especially when many are similar.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed throughout the set: many tools use verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, discover_tools, resolve_entity, validate_claim), but there are also noun_noun (polymarket_edges, entity_profile, bet_research), adjective_noun (deep_research, recent_alerts), and bare verbs (forget, recall, remember, subscribe). No consistent pattern emerges, making tool names harder to predict and remember.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, this server is heavy and tries to serve many unrelated domains—data research, prediction markets, package registries, memory, subscriptions, and AI visibility. The prediction-markets cluster alone accounts for six highly specialized tools that could be consolidated. The scope feels bloated rather than focused, which will overwhelm agents exploring the toolset.

Completeness4/5

Each domain within the server has solid coverage: data lookups offer stable, beta, grounded, and deep-research variants; entity analysis has profile, compare, changes, and resolve; subscriptions support create/list/delete/alert-read; memory has set/get/list/delete. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct package search by keyword, no tool to update a subscription), but the major workflows are covered and there are no dead ends.

Resources