Skip to main content
Glama

Crc

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds concrete behavioral details: serves daily snapshots, 60-day TTL, snapshots from daily closes at default slippage, and output structure including expired edges and snapshot dates. 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?

Description is well-structured with a clear purpose sentence then detailed output explanation in sections. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose with some technical details that could be streamlined.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response format (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates with fields) and limits. Covers behavioral aspects and sufficient context for a 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?

Both parameters have full schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description restates defaults and bounds for 'days' but adds minimal value beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it provides edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots, answering a specific question about edge age and trend. It distinguishes from siblings like polymarket_edges and polymarket_arbitrage by its analytical focus.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies it's for analyzing edge persistence, but does not contrast with siblings or mention alternatives. Context is inferred from output details.

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

All Crc 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially in the prediction market domain (e.g., bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk) and data querying (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research). This overlap creates confusion for an agent selecting the right tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: most tools use snake_case but some start with a verb (ask_, bet_, compare_) while others start with a noun (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_*). There is no uniform pattern, making it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools, the server is overstuffed for a single focus. It bundles checksums, AI visibility, data queries, prediction market analysis, subscriptions, memory, and more, which would be better split into separate, more focused servers.

Completeness2/5

Despite the large tool count, the server lacks completeness in key areas: no tool to place prediction market trades, no direct SEC filing detail extraction (only through generic queries), and only two checksum tools despite the server name 'Crc'. The surface feels scattershot rather than comprehensive.

Resources