Skip to main content
Glama

Datalastic

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, which the description goes well beyond by detailing response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), limitations (60-day TTL, snapshot gaps), and computation basis (daily closes, not intraday). This adds substantial context not present in annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is well-structured with clearly labeled sections (Args, Response, Limits). Every sentence provides valuable information — from the core purpose to response shape to edge-case limitations. Despite being longer than minimal, no content is wasted.

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 tool has no output schema and two parameters, the description fully compensates by detailing the exact response structure, all relevant limitations (snapshot TTL, gaps, non-intraday data), and the semantics of edge_pp_net. It is self-contained and adequate for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results.

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% and both params are described. The description adds extra meaning: 'days' lookback default 14 and max 30 (schema adds clamp 2-30), and 'window' is explained as 'snapshot family' with default 1wk. It also adds conceptual context about how these parameters affect the time-series analysis.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots' and answers a specific question. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_edges (current edges) and polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on time-series persistence and decay.

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 provides strong context for when to use the tool: 'a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old wide edge are different trades' and explains that decay telemetry helps assess opportunity longevity. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the use case is clearly differentiated from siblings.

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

All Datalastic 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 nearly the same question-answering role: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all accept natural-language factual queries, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx today. The polymarket_* family also has overlapping opportunity-detection responsibilities, so an agent can easily select a near-duplicate tool for the same intent.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are uniformly lowercase snake_case and use recognizable domain prefixes like ask_pipeworx_, polymarket_, datalastic_, and pipeworx_, which makes the set easy to group. The main deviation is that some names are verb-first (ask, compare, subscribe) while others are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, bet_research), but this is minor and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools this exceeds the 25+ threshold for a single server, and many of them are meta-tools or overlapping research/opportunity scanners that could be consolidated. The breadth is justified only partially; several utilities like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency feel bolted on.

Completeness3/5

As a general research and monitoring toolkit it covers the full life cycle: discover, ask, verify, compare, profile, cite, remember, subscribe, and alert. But the server is named Datalastic yet the maritime surface is thin (only live position and radius lookup, no historical tracking, port calls, or fleet tools), and a few one-off utilities don't fit a coherent domain.

Resources