Skip to main content
Glama

Ashby

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description significantly expands on annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) by detailing data sources (daily snapshots), limitations (60-day TTL, snapshot gaps), computation details (decay from daily closes), and response structure. 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 information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, but it is somewhat lengthy. A slightly more concise rewrite could improve readability without losing content.

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 2 parameters with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response fields (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]), includes limitations, and covers edge cases (gaps, TTL). It is fully complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Both parameters have schema descriptions, but the description adds meaningful context: default values (days=14, window='1wk'), clamping (2-30 for days), and explains the 'window' as a snapshot family. It also provides the response structure, which is valuable 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 provides 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots' and answers a specific question about edge longevity. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on historical time-series and decay metrics.

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 gives clear context on when to use (e.g., assessing if an edge is fresh or old) and the rationale behind it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives like polymarket_edges for current edges.

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

All Ashby 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

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical variants; polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, and polymarket_kalshi_spread all target prediction-market opportunities. Research tools like entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, and validate_claim also blur together, making it hard to pick the right tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools use verb_noun (get_candidate, list_applications, remember), others use noun_verb (bet_research, entity_profile) or prefix-only patterns (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges). The Ashby tools use ashby_ prefix, but the rest mix pipeworx_, polymarket_, and bare names, with no uniform style.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is excessive for a coherent server and spans unrelated domains: ATS (Ashby), data queries (Pipeworx), prediction markets (Polymarket), memory, subscriptions, and web utilities. This feels like a kitchen sink rather than a focused toolset, and the count alone makes selection overwhelming.

Completeness2/5

The Ashby ATS subset is incomplete: it provides get/list operations but no create, update, or delete for candidates or jobs, and no interview management. The broader server's scope is so mixed that each domain has obvious gaps, leaving agents unable to complete common workflows end-to-end.

Resources