Skip to main content
Glama

Skiddle

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, but the description adds rich behavioral context: the scan scope, Jaccard similarity filter, partition filter, and the fill check logic. 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 detailed and structured, with clear sections for each mode. While it is somewhat lengthy, every sentence contributes useful information. It could be slightly more concise, but the structure is front-loaded and logical.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the return structure (opportunities array with fields) and important edge cases like the fill check. It lacks explicit mention of empty return cases, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 100% of parameters, and the description adds substantial meaning: explains what event slugs and topic seed questions look like, gives examples, and describes how each parameter affects the scan mode and output. This goes well beyond the schema 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's purpose: finding arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes three modes (no args, event, topic) with specific use cases, making it unambiguous for an AI agent.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each mode (no args for trending scan, event for specific market, topic for cross-event scanning) and even directs the agent to use polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing. It also advises against trading when the fill check shows no edge, offering clear do-not-use conditions.

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

All Skiddle 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have clearly distinct roles, but the ask_pipeworx / ask_pipeworx_beta / ask_pipeworx_grounded / deep_research cluster overlaps heavily as question-answering and research entry points, with ask_pipeworx_beta currently being an exact duplicate of ask_pipeworx. The prediction-market tools are individually differentiated but numerous enough that selecting the right one requires careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set is predominantly snake_case and mostly readable, with sensible prefixes like ask_, search_, polymarket_, and scan_. However, conventions mix verb-first names (remember, subscribe, validate_claim), noun-style names (categories, event, entity_profile), and adjective-noun names (recent_alerts, recent_changes), so the pattern is not fully uniform.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold where a server starts to feel heavy, and many could be consolidated (7+ prediction-market tools, 4+ overlapping ask/research tools, plus memory and subscription helpers). The breadth is somewhat justified by the Pipeworx data platform, but the surface is still overloaded for a single server.

Completeness4/5

For the broad data/research domain, coverage is strong: lookup, grounded verification, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, change feeds, tool discovery, memory, and subscription lifecycle all have coherent coverage. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool to read a pipeworx:// citation URI directly and a fairly thin Skiddle events side beyond search/detail/categories.

Resources