Skip to main content
Glama

Openf1

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds substantial behavioral context: it details the algorithms used (monotonicity checks, partition sum checks), filtering mechanisms (Jaccard similarity, placeholder fraction), and the fill check that prevents trading on non-executable signals. 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 comprehensive but somewhat lengthy. It is well-structured with clear mode separation and front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more concise without losing essential detail. Every sentence adds value, but the density of technical terms may require re-reading.

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 of the tool (multiple modes, filtering, fill check) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides a complete picture. It explains the response structure (opportunities[], partition_check, fill_check) and trade recommendations, ensuring the agent understands what to expect and how to interpret results.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with 100% description coverage. The description goes far beyond by explaining the semantic difference between event and topic, providing example values (slugs, seed questions), and noting that full Polymarket URLs are accepted for the event parameter. This significantly enriches the schema information.

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: finding arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It identifies three distinct modes (trending_scan, event, topic) with specific verb+resource combinations, effectively differentiating the tool's capabilities from possible siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use each mode: no args for trending scan, event for a specific market slug, and topic for cross-event scanning. It gives concrete examples. However, it does not compare this tool to siblings like polymarket_edges or polymarket_edge_tracker, which could cause confusion about which tool to select for related tasks.

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

All Openf1 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions across the same 5,756-tool catalog, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now. The polymarket_* family also overlaps heavily (edges, arbitrage, fill_risk, kalshi_spread all surface tradeable discrepancies), and entity_profile/compare_entities/recent_changes all fan out to overlapping SEC/news/patent sources. Descriptions are detailed, but the set contains intentional near-duplicates that make selection genuinely ambiguous.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming follows no single convention: get_drivers/get_laps/get_meetings/get_sessions use verb_noun, polymarket_arbitrage/polymarket_edges are noun-phrase domain prefixes, pipeworx_feedback/pipeworx_trending use a vendor prefix, remember/recall/forget are bare verbs, and ask_pipeworx variants mix with action phrases like discover_tools, deep_research, and validate_claim. The inconsistency makes it harder to predict related tool names.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is heavy, and the count is severely mismatched to the server name 'Openf1': only 4 of 35 tools (get_drivers, get_laps, get_meetings, get_sessions) are actually F1-related, while the other 31 are a general-purpose Pipeworx data/prediction-market platform. The number itself could be reasonable for a broad data hub, but for an F1 server it is bloated with unrelated functionality.

Completeness2/5

For the stated F1 domain, the surface is severely incomplete: it covers meetings, sessions, drivers, and laps but lacks race results, qualifying results, standings, pit stops, or constructor data — major gaps for any F1 use case. The Pipeworx side is far more complete (query, research, entities, verification, memory, subscriptions), but that completeness doesn't serve the server's apparent purpose.

Resources