Skip to main content
Glama

Cpsc

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even with readOnlyHint=true, the description goes far beyond annotations by disclosing critical behavioral details: history depth is bounded by 60-day TTL, snapshots are written on cache-miss (gaps mean no scan), decay is computed from daily closes of edge_pp_net (not intraday), and the sign convention (negative = SELL YES). This is exactly the kind of context that prevents misuse.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but exceptionally well-structured with clear sections (Args, RESPONSE, LIMITS). Every sentence earns its place—there is no filler or redundancy. The use of ALL CAPS for response keys and section headers improves scannability.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully compensates by detailing the response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]), what each field means, and the limitations (TTL, cache-miss gaps, daily closes). It also explains the median lifespan as a 'competition clock,' making the tool's output actionable without requiring further documentation.

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?

The schema already names and describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that days controls lookback with a clamp of 2-30 and is bounded by the 60-day TTL, and that window selects a snapshot family (24hr/1wk/1mo). This extra behavioral context on how parameters affect results nudges the score above baseline.

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 defines the tool as 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry' with a specific question it answers: 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on historical persistence and decay, and even explains why a 3-week-old edge is materially different from a fresh one.

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 strong contextual guidance on when to use the tool: when you need edge persistence, decay trends, and lifecycles. It includes a motivating example (fresh vs. old edge) and explains what the snapshots represent. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool, which prevents a perfect score.

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

All Cpsc 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are organized into clearly differentiated families (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded, polymarket_edges vs polymarket_arbitrage), but there are some genuinely ambiguous pairs: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, and search_recalls/recent_recalls, ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence, and bet_research/polymarket_edges all require careful reading to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set is consistently lowercase snake_case and contains strong families like ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, recent_*, and search_*. However, the naming pattern is mixed: imperative verbs (recall, forget, subscribe), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes, pipeworx_trending), and action prefixes (scan_, generate_, validate_) all coexist, making the overall convention less predictable than a uniform verb_noun scheme.

Tool Count2/5

With 33 tools, the server exceeds the healthy range and spreads across many side domains: data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, npm dependency checks, llms.txt generation, and AI visibility audits. No individual tool feels pointless, but the overall surface is sprawling rather than tightly curated for a single purpose.

Completeness4/5

The core research workflow is well covered: querying, grounded verification, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, recent changes, claim validation, deep research, memory, and subscriptions. Minor gaps exist—there is no direct reader for pipeworx:// citation URIs, no tool to update or edit a stored memory, and subscriptions can be created/cancelled but not modified—but agents can work around these.

Resources