Skip to main content
Glama

Reactome

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. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this without contradicting it. It adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: walks the order book ladder, returns specific fields like slippage_pp and max_fillable_usd, and discloses partial-fill risks and forced_directional_risk naming legs that could strand the user unhedged.

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 a long, dense paragraph but every clause carries functional information. It is front-loaded with the purpose and required parameter, then details modes and outputs. A bit more structure (e.g., sections for single-market vs basket) would improve scannability, but it's not padded.

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?

For a complex tool with two modes, no output schema, and no required parameters, the description is exceptionally complete: it covers both modes, key return fields, default behaviors, edge risks, and the exact usage threshold. It also explains the dominant loss mode (partial basket fills) which gives the agent actionable context for when to invoke this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains how size_usd is interpreted differently in single-market vs basket mode, how 'side' defaults in basket mode based on partition sum, and that market/event modes are mutually exclusive. This is far beyond what the schema provides.

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: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by framing it as a pre-trade risk check rather than a signal finder.

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 provided: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also explains the risk rationale (theoretical overround not capturable on thin books, partial fills convert arb into unhedged position), giving clear when-to-use context.

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

All Reactome 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping research purposes (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and multiple bet-related tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges). Reactome-specific tools are few but mixed in with unrelated tools, causing ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent: some snake_case (ask_pipeworx, deep_research), some camelCase (generate_llms_txt, list_subscriptions), and some mixed (pipeworx_feedback, poly market_arbitrage). No uniform pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a Reactome server, as only a handful are Reactome-specific. Many tools are unrelated (e.g., bet_research, compare_entities), making the tool count feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

The Reactome-specific tools cover basic pathway lookups but miss key operations like reactions, complexes, or advanced queries. The server's completeness for the Reactome domain is poor, diluted by many non-Reactome tools.

Resources