Skip to main content
Glama

Fred

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. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) already indicate safety. The description adds rich behavioral context: algorithmic details (monotonicity, partition checks), semantic anchor (Jaccard similarity), partition filter for placeholders, and fill check with realizable edge. It warns against trading when conditions aren't met. 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is verbose, diving into detailed algorithmic explanations (SEMANTIC ANCHOR, PARTITION FILTER, FILL CHECK). While well-structured with mode-first presentation, it could be more concise by omitting implementation details that may not be necessary for tool selection. Every sentence adds value, but the length may hinder quick parsing.

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 no output schema, the description explains the response structure (opportunities[] with fields, partition_check details, fill_check). It references sibling tools for related functionality (polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing). Given the tool's complexity (idempotent, non-destructive, two optional params), the description is comprehensive enough for an agent to understand input, output, and usage contexts.

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?

Both parameters (event, topic) have schema descriptions, but the tool description adds substantial value: explains the difference between single-event and cross-event modes, gives example inputs ('fed-decision-may-2026', 'Strait of Hormuz...'), and describes internal logic (Jaccard similarity, placeholder filtering). This far exceeds the schema's basic descriptions.

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 and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes between three modes (no args, event, topic) with specific use cases, making it easy to differentiate from sibling tools like polymarket_edges or polymarket_fill_risk.

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 for each mode: 'Call with NO args for a trending_scan', 'event (recommended for a specific market)', 'topic (for cross-event scanning)'. It explains when to use each and contrasts cross-event vs single-event detection. Provides examples of valid inputs (e.g., 'fed-decision-may-2026'). No when-not-to-use, but the positive guidance is clear.

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

All Fred 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
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with detailed descriptions that differentiate even closely related tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded. The FRED and Polymarket tool sets are well-organized with unique responsibilities. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun or noun_verb pattern in snake_case (e.g., resolve_entity, compare_entities, list_subscriptions). However, a few tools like 'forget', 'remember', and 'recall' deviate by being single verbs, and 'pipeworx_feedback' uses a noun_verb format. Overall, the naming is predictable but has minor inconsistencies.

Tool Count4/5

With 37 tools covering a broad domain (economic data, prediction markets, company profiles, subscriptions, memory, etc.), the count is reasonable and justifiable. It is slightly above the typical sweet spot but not excessive, and each tool serves a specific purpose. The scope is broad enough to warrant this many tools.

Completeness5/5

The server provides a comprehensive surface for its domain, including CRUD-like operations for data querying (ask_pipeworx, deep_research), specialized tools for prediction markets (arbitrage, edges), and utilities (memory, subscriptions). Obvious operations like entity resolution, comparison, and change tracking are present. No critical gaps are apparent for the stated purpose of querying structured data and engaging with prediction markets.

Resources