Skip to main content
Glama

Datos Ar

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral details beyond annotations, including response format (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), data limitations (60-day TTL, snapshot gaps), and computation method (daily closes, not intraday). No contradiction.

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 the purpose first, followed by response fields and limitations. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more concise, especially in the response breakdown.

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 there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return values (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) and their significance. It also covers data gaps, limits (60-day TTL), and computation details, making the tool fully understandable for an AI agent.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description reiterates defaults (14 days, '1wk' window) and provides context like clamp range, but does not add new semantic information beyond 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: providing edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots. It answers a specific question about edge duration and uses comparative reasoning to differentiate from related tools like polymarket_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 gives context for when to use the tool (e.g., comparing fresh vs. old wide edges) and explains the output structure, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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

All Datos Ar 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

Several tools cluster around the same underlying data router (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and the prediction-market family has five overlapping members, so misselection is possible. The descriptions are detailed enough to separate most intents, but ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now and ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence are close cousins.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names consistently use lowercase snake_case, and most follow a clear verb_noun shape like ask_pipeworx, get_series, subscribe, or validate_claim. A few noun-style names (entity_profile, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges) and the bare memory verbs (remember, recall, forget) break the pattern slightly, but the overall convention is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is a heavy surface that exceeds the 25-tool threshold where selection cost becomes a real problem for agents. The count is inflated by auxiliary concerns like memory, subscriptions, feedback, trending, and AI-presence scans that sit alongside the core data-access mission.

Completeness4/5

The core data-research workflows are well covered: discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions), retrieval (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, get_series), entity resolution (resolve_entity), profiles, comparisons, claim validation, and prediction-market analysis all have end-to-end support. Memory and subscription lifecycles are also complete. Minor gaps exist — some sources soft-fail and there is little Argentina-specific tooling beyond the time-series pair — but agents can generally work around them.

Resources