Skip to main content
Glama

uored

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/destructive=false. The description goes beyond by disclosing the 60-day snapshot TTL, that decay is computed from daily closes net of default slippage, that history starts from when snapshotting was enabled, and how expired opportunities are defined. This adds substantial behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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 lengthy but well-structured with clear section markers (Args, RESPONSE, LIMITS). Every sentence carries functional information, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is not overly verbose given the complexity of the response format and limits, though it could be tightened slightly.

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 tool's complexity (time-series snapshots, TTL, missing-data semantics) and the absence of an output schema, the description fully covers the response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and the key limits. It provides enough detail for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra semantics: days 'lookback, default 14, max 30' (schema says clamp 2-30) and window 'snapshot family' with default. These enrich but do not substantially change understanding beyond the 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 opens with a precise verb+resource: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots.' It immediately answers the specific question 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' and contrasts fresh vs. old edges, clearly distinguishing it from related sibling tools like polymarket_edges or polymarket_arbitrage.

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 a strong usage context by explaining when edge persistence matters ('a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old wide edge are different trades') and what the response reveals. It does not explicitly name alternatives but implies when to use this tool over siblings. It also states data-gap semantics ('snapshots are written when polymarket_edges runs on a cache-miss'), giving practical guidance for interpretation.

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

All uored 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several clusters overlap: the three random-activity tools are near-variants of the same action, ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, and discover_tools/suggest_questions both serve capability discovery. The detailed descriptions help agents choose correctly, but the boundaries are not always crisp.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case, but conventions are mixed: verb_noun (resolve_entity, discover_tools), bare verbs (remember, subscribe), adjective_noun (recent_alerts, deep_research), and noun compounds (polymarket_edge_tracker, entity_profile). Clusters are internally consistent, but there is no single pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels bloated. The random-activity trio and the ask_pipeworx stable/beta/grounded trio add redundancy, and several meta-tools could be consolidated. The broad domain scope justifies some of the size, but not all of it.

Completeness3/5

The data query, memory, and Polymarket research surfaces are well covered, but the subscription lifecycle is incomplete: list_subscriptions invites cancellation yet there is no cancel/unsubscribe tool, creating a dead end. Other areas have minor workarounds but no other show-stopping gaps.

Resources