Skip to main content
Glama

Data Issy

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds significant context: history bound by 60-day TTL, snapshot gaps explained, decay computed from daily closes (not intraday), and detailed response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[] with meanings for each field). 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 detailed response and limits. Every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise but remains clear and informative.

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 annotations (readOnly, idempotent, etc.) and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), how to interpret values (signed edge, trend flags, decay), and operational limits (TTL, snapshot gaps). No missing context.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra context: explains days as 'lookback' with default/max, window as 'snapshot family' with defaults, and clarifies how parameters affect results (e.g., gaps in snapshot_dates). Also describes the response format, which is not 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 the tool's purpose: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots.' It answers the specific question 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on historical depth 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?

The description implies when to use: for evaluating edge persistence vs. freshness, contrasting a fresh wide edge with a 3-week-old one. It gives context on when this tool adds value but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention sibling tools by name.

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

All Data Issy 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

The toolset is mostly organized by clear subdomains, but there are multiple overlapping entry points: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer research questions and the beta version is currently identical to the stable router. Detailed descriptions reduce confusion, but an agent could still reasonably pick the wrong one for a given task. The entity, memory, and subscription tools are more clearly separated.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently lower_snake_case and readable, but the set mixes verb-led names (compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim) with noun-led names (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending) and some odd pairings like ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence. No chaotic camelCase or inconsistent separators, but the convention is not uniform enough for a strong score.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is past the 25+ threshold and the surface spans many unrelated domains: structured data lookup, prediction markets, AI visibility marketing, city open data, npm dependency checking, llms.txt generation, memory, and subscriptions. Each tool may be individually useful, but the collection feels like a platform dump rather than a tightly scoped server. A more focused server would split off prediction markets, AI visibility, and utility tools.

Completeness4/5

The main data-research workflow is well covered: discovery, routing, grounded answering, deep research, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, recent changes, claim validation, and search-within-results are all present. Prediction-market analysis, memory, and subscription lifecycles also have no major dead ends. Minor gaps exist, such as no write/update path for open data and no subscription option for AI-visibility monitoring, but these are not central to the apparent core purpose.

Resources