Skip to main content
Glama

Digimon

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
  2. Removed
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that data comes from daily snapshots, decay is based on daily closes of edge_pp_net (not intraday), and snapshots may have gaps. 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 detailed and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes necessary information about response structure and limitations without being overly verbose. While dense, every sentence serves a purpose. Minor reduction for length, but overall well-structured.

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 complexity of the tool and absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly covers the response: tracked array with time-series, first_seen, trend, decay_pp_per_day; expired opportunities with lifespan_days; snapshot_dates. It also explains limitations and data sources, providing full context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying default values (days default 14 max 30, window default '1wk') and listing valid options for window ('24hr | 1wk | 1mo'). This supplements the schema which also has descriptions but without explicit defaults in the parameter schema itself.

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 it provides edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily polymarket_edges snapshots. It specifies the resource (edge persistence/decay) and uses a specific verb ('answers how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on time-series analysis rather than current 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 clear context for when to use the tool: to distinguish between fresh and old edges. It also mentions limits like the 60-day snapshot TTL. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or direct users to alternative tools for different needs, such as using polymarket_edges for only current edge data.

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

All Digimon 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
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap significantly: the three ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) are near-identical routers, and the six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research cover overlapping prediction-market territory. The server name 'Digimon' adds confusion since almost all tools are unrelated to Digimon, making it hard for an agent to tell what this server is actually for.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, which is consistent, but the pattern is mixed: some tools start with verbs (get_digimon, search_digimon, list_subscriptions, validate_claim), others with nouns (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage, pipeworx_trending), and a few are bare verbs (remember, recall, forget). This irregularity makes the naming less predictable than a uniformly verb-first set.

Tool Count2/5

With 33 tools, the server exceeds the 'too many' threshold and feels bloated. The tools span Digimon data, Pipeworx research, Polymarket betting, memory, subscriptions, and even llms.txt generation—an incoherent grab-bag that doesn't form a focused, well-scoped toolkit.

Completeness4/5

For the broad data-research and prediction-market domain implied by the majority of the tools, the surface is impressively comprehensive: universal routing, grounded answers, deep research, entity resolution, company/drug profiles, comparisons, claim validation, memory, subscriptions, discovery, and multiple specialized Polymarket tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct order execution on Polymarket), but ask_pipeworx routes to thousands of sources, covering most needs.

Resources