Skip to main content
Glama

Htmltext

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.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with these. Beyond annotations, it discloses return fields (verdict, thin_legs, forced_directional_risk) and behavioral nuances like the risk of partial fills causing directional exposure.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET, usage guidance). Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose; concise for the complexity involved.

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 the complexity (two modes, no output schema), the description covers inputs, outputs, risks, and usage context comprehensively. It details return fields (vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc.) and risk alerts, making the tool fully self-contained.

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%, and the description adds significant context: explains how size_usd is interpreted differently in single-market vs basket mode (spend vs proceeds vs settlement notional), default side logic in basket, and the meaning of market/event fields.

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 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges. It defines two distinct modes (single-market and basket) with specific inputs and outputs.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. Also warns about risks of partial basket fills converting arb into unhedged directional positions.

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

All Htmltext 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping or nested roles: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx currently, ask_pipeworx_grounded uses the same router, and polymarket_arbitrage/polymarket_edges both surface mispricings. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence are also tightly coupled, making tool selection error-prone.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are uniformly snake_case and mostly readable, but the pattern is mixed: verb-first names like extract_links and discover_tools coexist with noun-first product names like polymarket_edges and entity_profile, plus bare verbs like remember and forget. This breaks the predictable verb_noun convention.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is far too many for a server named Htmltext, and most tools are unrelated to HTML processing. Even as a broad data-research server, the count exceeds the usual 3-15 sweet spot and includes meta-tools, near-duplicate query modes, and niche utilities that bloat the surface.

Completeness3/5

The set is unusually broad—covering data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, HTML extraction, AI visibility, and package scanning—but no single domain is fully fleshed out. HTML tools only do extraction, prediction-market tools lack a simple market browser, and there is no general web fetch tool. Most gaps can be worked around via ask_pipeworx, but the surface feels like a grab bag rather than a cohesive lifecycle.

Resources