Skip to main content
Glama

Datacite

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. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing behavior: it uses daily snapshots, computes trend and decay, returns tracked, expired, and snapshot_dates. It explains that decay is computed on the absolute edge_pp_net, signed by trade direction, and mentions limitations (60-day TTL, non-intraday data). 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with clear sections (RESPONSE, LIMITS) and is concise given the amount of information. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tighter.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers return values (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) with details on fields, trend, decay, and limitations. It explains the signed nature of edge_pp_net. Lacks explicit examples but is sufficient for an agent to understand tool usage and output.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about default values and snapshot families ('1wk'), but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: providing edge persistence and decay telemetry from polymarket_edges snapshots. It answers a specific question about edge duration and contrasts fresh vs. old edges, distinguishing it from siblings like polymarket_edges which likely provide current snapshots.

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 when to use the tool: to understand how long an edge has existed and if it is shrinking. It contrasts a fresh wide edge with a 3-week-old one, implying when not to rely on current edge data. Limitations about history depth and TTL are also provided. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for current edges.

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

All Datacite 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools occupy overlapping roles: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical entry points (beta currently behaves exactly like stable), while entity_profile, recent_changes, and compare_entities all target company research. The prediction-market cluster (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) is large enough that an agent could easily select the wrong one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed throughout: verb_noun patterns (search_dois, list_repositories, validate_claim) coexist with noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, ai_visibility_check) and bare verbs (remember, recall, forget, subscribe). The only consistent thread is snake_case, but the grammatical style is unpredictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the server is overstuffed, especially given its apparent focus is DataCite but only 3 tools actually serve that domain (get_doi, search_dois, list_repositories). The rest are a grab bag of Pipeworx data routing, prediction-market analytics, memory, and subscription utilities that would be better split into separate focused servers.

Completeness2/5

The DataCite surface is incomplete (no DOI creation, update, or deletion despite DataCite supporting registration), while the Pipeworx surface has no direct fetch-by-URI tool for the pipeworx:// citations that other tools return. The presence of a duplicate beta router and a beta router with no active differences further muddies the coverage picture.

Resources