Skip to main content
Glama

Hunter

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds extensive behavioral context: monotonicity checks, partition sum verification, similarity filtering, placeholder exclusion, and fill risk assessment. It explains when not to trade (realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0). No contradictions 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 thorough but somewhat lengthy. It is well-structured, starting with the core action, then detailing each mode and sub-checks (semantic anchor, partition filter, fill check). Every sentence adds value, but the density might be overwhelming. A cleaner summary at the top would improve conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers the response structure: opportunities array with gap_pp, suggested_trade, reasoning; partition_check object with sum_yes_prices, gap_from_1, etc. It also mentions fill check details. However, it could be more explicit about all response fields and their types. For a complex tool, it is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description enriches these by providing examples (e.g., 'fed-decision-may-2026'), explaining the difference between event and topic modes, and clarifying that 'topic' accepts seed questions. It adds meaning beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks.' It distinguishes three modes (no args, event, topic) and differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_fill_risk by focusing specifically on arbitrage detection.

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?

The description explicitly tells when to use each mode: 'Call with NO args for a trending_scan... pass event for... pass topic for...' It recommends event for a specific market and topic for cross-event scanning. It also advises using polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing, providing clear usage guidance and alternatives.

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

All Hunter 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters have genuinely blurry boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly'), ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to the same 5,743-tool catalog, and the six Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) heavily overlap on 'should I bet / where is the edge'. The descriptions are detailed and cross-reference each other, but an agent would still struggle to pick correctly among near-duplicates.

Naming Consistency3/5

Everything is uniformly snake_case and readable, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern: verb_noun (resolve_entity, discover_tools, validate_claim) mixes with noun_noun (domain_search, entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage), adjective_noun (deep_research, recent_changes), bare verbs (forget, recall, remember), and brand prefixes (pipeworx_*, ask_pipeworx_*). Readable, but patternless.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the heavy threshold, but the bigger issue is scope incoherence: a server named 'Hunter' dedicates only 3 of 34 tools to Hunter.io email lookup while the remaining 31 belong to an unrelated Pipeworx data-research/prediction-market platform. The count is not earned by a single coherent purpose.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx research core is quite thorough: entity resolution, single-lookup, grounded answers, deep research, profiles, comparisons, claim validation, semantic search-within-records, change feeds, subscriptions, and memory form a full research lifecycle. However, the domain is a grab-bag spanning email finding, npm dependency checking, prediction markets, and data research, and the three Hunter.io tools that match the server name are only a thin fragment of the surface.

Resources