Skip to main content
Glama

ureweries

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 mark it as read-only/idempotent, but description adds extensive behavioral detail: response schema, snapshot gap meaning, TTL limits, decay calculation method, and signed edge values. No contradictions.

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?

Long but well-structured with sections for args, response, limits. The motivational sentence about wide edges adds context but could be trimmed. Overall, each section earns its place given the tool's complexity.

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 tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly explains every response field, data caveats (snapshot gaps, TTL), and computation specifics. Very complete for a read-only telemetry tool.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. Description restates defaults and adds 'max 30' but no significant new semantics 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?

Clearly states what it does: edge persistence/decay telemetry from polymarket_edges snapshots, answering how long an edge has existed and if it's shrinking. Differentiates from sibling polymarket_edges by focusing on historical time-series rather than current 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 for when to use: when you need to know edge longevity/decay, contrasting fresh vs old wide edges. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or exclusions, leaving implicit that polymarket_edges handles current snapshots.

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

All ureweries 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear distinct purposes, but ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research overlap in querying Pipeworx data sources. Entity_profile and recent_changes also share some coverage. Overall, agents can differentiate, but a few pairs may cause confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names use snake_case for multi-word (e.g., ai_visibility_check) but also single-word verbs (forget, recall, remember). The pattern is not uniform: some are verb_noun, some are just noun or verb. Mixed conventions reduce predictability.

Tool Count3/5

At 33 tools, the set is on the high side for an MCP server. The server covers a broad data-query domain, which justifies many specialized tools, but the count is borderline heavy and includes several meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions). Could be streamlined without losing core functionality.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is comprehensive for data retrieval across financial, economic, pharmaceutical, real estate, weather, and prediction markets. It includes both single-lookup and comparative tools, plus monitoring via subscriptions. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct update/delete for user memory beyond forget), but the core domain is well-covered.

Resources