Skip to main content
Glama

Altos

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Polymarket Edge Tracker

polymarket_edge_tracker
Read-onlyIdempotent

Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots. Answers "how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?" — a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old wide edge are different trades (the latter is wide for a reason nobody is willing to take). Args: days (lookback, default 14, max 30), window (snapshot family, default "1wk"). RESPONSE: tracked[] = every opportunity in the LATEST snapshot with its full edge_pp_net time-series across prior snapshots, first_seen, trend (new | widening | stable | decaying) and decay_pp_per_day (both computed on |edge_pp_net| — the value itself is signed by trade direction, negative = SELL YES); expired[] = opportunities that appeared in earlier snapshots but are GONE from the latest (closed, resolved, or arbed away) with their lifespan_days — the median lifespan is your competition clock; snapshot_dates[] = which days actually have data (snapshots are written when polymarket_edges runs on a cache-miss, so gaps mean nobody scanned that day). LIMITS: history depth is bounded by the 60-day snapshot TTL and starts from when snapshotting was enabled; decay numbers come from daily closes of edge_pp_net (net of default slippage), not intraday.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoLookback in days (default 14, clamp 2-30).
windowNoWhich polymarket_edges window family to read snapshots for: 24hr | 1wk | 1mo (default 1wk).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnly and idempotent. Description adds details on snapshot TTL, decay computation, and data gaps, which enhance transparency beyond 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?

Description is lengthy but well-structured with clear sections (response format, limits). Could be slightly more concise, but no redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, response structure is thoroughly explained. Limits and data source details are provided, making the tool fully understandable.

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?

Both parameters are fully described with defaults and ranges in both schema and description. Description adds context (e.g., days lookback, window families) beyond 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: edge persistence and decay telemetry from polymarket_edges snapshots. It answers a specific question and distinguishes from siblings like polymarket_edges.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use (e.g., comparing fresh vs old edges) and details response structure. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but context is sufficient.

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

All Altos 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes; however, 'ask_pipeworx' and 'ask_pipeworx_grounded' are very similar, and 'polymarket_edges' vs 'polymarket_edge_tracker' could cause confusion. The real estate tools (altos_active_listings, altos_new_listings, altos_pending_sales) are clearly differentiated by status.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names use snake_case and are descriptive, but prefixes vary (altos_, polymarket_, ask_pipeworx, etc.) and patterns like 'entity_profile' or 'generate_llms_txt' don't follow strict verb_noun. Overall, naming is fairly consistent and readable.

Tool Count3/5

36 tools is high but justifiable given the broad scope (real estate, prediction markets, SEC/FDA data, etc.). Some utility tools (list_subscriptions, pipeworx_feedback) could be integrated, but the count is borderline heavy for a single server.

Completeness4/5

The server covers multiple domains thoroughly with tools for real estate, company profiles, prediction markets, and general data queries. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated tool for FDA drug details beyond ask_pipeworx), but meta-tools like deep_research fill many needs.

Resources