Skip to main content
Glama

Firecrawl

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses behavioral details: it uses live CLOB depth, the Jaccard similarity threshold (≥0.30), the placeholder partition filter (>20% returns null), and the skipped_low_similarity counter. It also explains the internal arb.fill_check step and its realizable edge condition, so agents know what the tool actually computes.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and uses uppercase section markers (SEMANTIC ANCHOR, PARTITION FILTER, FILL CHECK) for structure. However, some details are repeated (event mode is explained twice) and the block could be tightened while preserving content.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, which it does: opportunities[] fields, partition_check object, and the fill-check outputs. It also covers edge cases (placeholder slugs, low similarity) and trade advisory, making it effectively complete for this complex tool.

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?

Although the schema already describes the two parameters, the description adds concrete examples ('fed-decision-may-2026', 'Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal'), explains the mutual exclusivity of event vs topic, and clarifies that no args triggers trending_scan. It also ties each parameter to its specific algorithm (partition_check vs cross-event comparator).

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 verb+resource: 'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks,' and immediately distinguishes the three invocation modes (trending_scan, event, topic). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like polymarket_fill_risk and polymarket_edges.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: call with no args for trending scan, pass event for a specific market (recommended), or topic for cross-event scanning. The description also names an alternative tool, polymarket_fill_risk, for custom sizing, and warns when a signal is not tradeable (realizable_edge_pp <= 0).

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

All Firecrawl 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but the Polymarket analytics tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) have overlapping focuses that could confuse an agent if descriptions are not read carefully. Overall, detailed descriptions help differentiate them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names are lowercase with underscores and follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, bet_research, compare_entities). Prefixes like polymarket_ and pipeworx_ group related tools. No mixing of conventions or vague names.

Tool Count4/5

With 33 tools, the count is on the higher side but appropriate given the broad scope covering Pipeworx data access, Polymarket analytics, web scraping, memory, and subscriptions. Each tool has a distinct role, and the set is not overly bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a wide range of tasks: data queries, prediction market analysis, web scraping, memory, and subscriptions. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for user account management or writing data back, but the core domain is well-covered with multiple specialized tools.

Resources