Skip to main content
Glama

Chargebee

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 the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description extensively discloses behavior: response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), field meanings (trend, decay_pp_per_day, lifespan_days), and limits (60-day TTL, daily closes, no intraday). 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?

The description is relatively long but well-structured: purpose first, then output details, then limits. Each sentence provides useful information, but some redundancy with schema exists.

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?

The description is very complete given no output schema: it explains the full response structure, field semantics, and data limitations. Covers edge cases like gaps in snapshots and median lifespan as competition clock.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description reiterates defaults and options but adds minimal new semantic value, mostly repeating what is in 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 clearly states it provides edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots, answering a specific question about edge duration. It distinguishes from sibling polymarket_edges (current edges) by focusing on historical tracking.

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 implies when to use (for historical edge analysis) and provides context about fresh vs old edges. It mentions limits but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternative tools for specific use cases.

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

All Chargebee 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all answer questions or discover data via the same routing engine, with ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly stated to be identical to ask_pipeworx. Polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk) also blur together, and ai_visibility_check overlaps with scan_competitor_ai_presence.

Naming Consistency2/5

Some clusters are consistent (chargebee_list_*/chargebee_get_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), but the set mixes snake_case with varying verb styles and many unprefixed tools (remember, recall, forget, subscribe, unsubscribe, validate_claim). The 5 Chargebee tools use a clean prefix while the other 31 tools follow several different conventions, making the overall pattern unpredictable.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is excessively heavy for a server named Chargebee, especially since only 5 tools actually relate to Chargebee. The remaining 31 tools form a broad Pipeworx/prediction-market/utility toolkit that has little connection to the server's apparent billing purpose, making the count feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness1/5

The Chargebee-specific surface is severely incomplete: it only supports reading customers, subscriptions, and invoices, with no create, update, delete, payment, dunning, coupon, or plan-management operations. The rest of the tools belong to unrelated domains, so the set as a whole has no coherent lifecycle coverage and would leave agents unable to perform even basic Chargebee management tasks.

Resources