Skip to main content
Glama

Texas Open Data

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description exceeds the annotations by detailing the response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]), limitations, and behavioral details (e.g., decay computed from daily closes of edge_pp_net). No contradiction 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is relatively long but well-structured with a clear sentence, response format listing, and limits. Each part adds value, though 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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response format including fields and meanings, compensating fully. For a complex tool, this is highly complete.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds little beyond re-stating defaults and adding context about window family. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots, answering specific questions about edge duration and decay. It distinguishes itself from siblings like polymarket_edges by focusing on time-series 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 explains the tool's purpose with a concrete example (fresh vs. 3-week-old edge) and mentions limits like TTL and snapshotting. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives.

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

All Texas Open Data 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Tools are individually well-described, but there is overlapping functionality among ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, as well as multiple prediction market tools. The detailed descriptions help, but the number of similar tools creates some ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with descriptive prefixes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, polymarket_edges). There are minor deviations like 'deep_research' vs 'bet_research' but overall the naming is predictable and clear.

Tool Count2/5

The server is named 'Texas Open Data' but only 3 of 33 tools (datasets, metadata, query) are directly related to Texas open data. The remaining tools cover a much broader domain (Pipeworx ecosystem), making the tool count inappropriate for the stated purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the stated purpose of Texas Open Data, the tool surface is incomplete—only basic query and metadata capabilities are provided, lacking data management, update, or delete operations. As a general pipeworx server it might be more complete, but the name suggests Texas-specific data.

Resources