Skip to main content
Glama

Data Issy

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Polymarket Edges

polymarket_edges
Read-onlyIdempotent

Scan top Polymarket markets and return opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price. Built for "what should I bet on today" — agents discover opportunities without paging hundreds of markets. FIVE MODEL FAMILIES grouped into three response segments under by_segment: (1) MODEL_DRIVEN — crypto_price (lognormal barrier from 90d FRED log-returns) and news_momentum (GDELT 7d/21d article-volume ratio, soft signal w/ halved Kelly). (2) STRUCTURAL_ARBITRAGE — partition_overround on mutually-exclusive events; per-leg favorite-longshot bias correction with per-sport α (tennis 1.02, soccer 1.10, MMA 1.15, default 1.0); placeholder-slug filter drops will-person-X / will-team-Y / will-manager-Z / will-someone-else- backstops; partitions with >20% placeholder fraction skipped entirely. (3) CONCENTRATED_LONGSHOT — basket trade when one leg ≥75% AND ≥2 longshots ≤8% AND portfolio return ≥25:1; rare-by-design (gates relaxed Run 8 from prior 85%/5%/50:1). EVERY OPPORTUNITY carries edge_pp_net (after slippage), kelly_fraction + kelly_fraction_half (capped at 0.25), market.liquidity, market.spread_pp, market.volume, plus a 24h-move warning ("Market moved X.Xpp in 24h") when the recent move alone exceeds the edge — your edge may already be in the price. TRADEABLE-EDGE KNOBS: min_liquidity / max_spread_pp drop opportunities where edge isn't realizable; min_partition_leg_kelly filters partitions by best per-leg Kelly. RESPONSE TOP-LEVEL: by_segment{model_driven,structural_arbitrage,concentrated_longshot}, fed_candidates/fed_note (Fed bets surface here, excluded from ranking — 1m-T vs EFFR signal is unreliable at meeting-month horizons without paid OIS/SOFR-futures data), and _diagnostics{concentrated_longshot:{...funnel counters},category_counts,filter_skips} so callers can see WHY a segment is empty (top-N stale, all candidates failed gates, knob dropped them). Cached 1h at the KV level keyed on all knobs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoTop N edges to return after ranking. Default 10, max 25.
windowNoPolymarket volume window to filter markets. Default 1wk.
min_kellyNoMinimum half-Kelly fraction (as decimal, e.g. 0.005 = 0.5% of bankroll) to include single-leg opportunities. Default 0 (no filter). Skips opportunities that are too small to bet sensibly even if the edge is large.
min_edge_ppNoMinimum |edge| in percentage points to include (default 0.5). Edge is evaluated NET of slippage.
slippage_ppNoAssumed execution slippage in percentage points per leg (default 0.3). Subtracted from raw |edge| before ranking and Kelly sizing. Polymarket has zero trading fees as of 2024 but bid/ask + thin depth typically eats 20-50bp per trade. Bump for very thin partitions; drop to 0 if you have a smarter fill model.
max_spread_ppNoTradeable-edge filter. Maximum bid/ask spread in percentage points on the representative market. Default null (no filter). Set to 2 to require tight books — anything wider eats most plausible edges.
min_liquidityNoTradeable-edge filter. Minimum $ liquidity on the representative market (or for partition_overround, on at least one top_leg). Default 0 (no filter). Set to 5000 to drop thin-book opportunities where executing the edge would walk the book past breakeven.
category_filterNoComma-separated list to restrict the output: "model_driven" (crypto_price + news_momentum), "structural_arbitrage" (partition_overround), "concentrated_longshot". Combine like "model_driven,structural_arbitrage". Default: all.
min_partition_leg_kellyNoMinimum BEST per-leg half-Kelly fraction across a partition_overround opportunity's top_legs (or longshot_basket legs). Default 0 (no filter). Partition arbs always return kelly_fraction_half=0 at the parent level by design (basket trades don't compose to single-leg Kelly), so min_kelly never filters them — this knob applies to the per-leg Kelly inside top_legs instead. Use to suppress thin partitions whose individual leg edges aren't worth the per-leg slippage cost.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds extensive behavioral details: caching at KV level keyed on all knobs with 1h TTL, how segments work, diagnostics for empty results, and the Fed bets exclusion. No contradictions with annotations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very detailed and front-loads the purpose, but it is quite long (multiple paragraphs) with extensive mathematical detail on model families and implementation specifics. While structured with bullet points, it could be more concise. The verbosity may reduce readability for some agents.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and the complexity of the tool, the description is highly complete. It explains the response top-level structure (by_segment, fed_candidates, _diagnostics), the meaning of edge fields, and how filters work. All essential information for an agent to use the tool effectively is present.

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 significant value beyond the schema's descriptions, e.g., explaining slippage_pp with actual market context (zero fees but bid/ask depth eats 20-50bp) and the purpose of min_partition_leg_kelly for partition arbs. Most parameters get extra detail.

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: 'Scan top Polymarkets' to find opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market prices. It is built for 'what should I bet on today' discovery. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edge_tracker, which likely have different scopes.

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 explains that the tool is for initial discovery without paging through hundreds of markets. It details the three segments (model-driven, structural arbitrage, concentrated longshot) and the tradeable-edge knobs (min_liquidity, max_spread_pp). It does not explicitly state when not to use it versus alternatives, but the context implies it is for opportunity scanning, not for detailed tracking (which sibling tools may handle).

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