Skip to main content
Glama

dogsapi

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description goes well beyond this by detailing the response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]), explaining edge_pp_net sign convention, describing gaps in snapshot dates due to cache-miss behavior, and disclosing limitations such as the 60-day TTL and daily-close basis. This provides comprehensive behavioral context without contradicting the 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 long but every sentence carries essential information. It is logically structured: opening purpose, argument details, response format, and limitations. There is no filler or redundancy; the detailed format is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

For a read-only telemetry tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining the response in detail, including the meaning of each field, trends, and edge cases like missing snapshot dates. Limits and data provenance are also covered, making the tool's behavior predictable.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (days and window) with format and defaults, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds a marginal 'snapshot family' context for window and restates defaults, but does not significantly enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema. Therefore, the baseline score of 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 identifies the tool as 'edge persistence and decay telemetry' built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots, with a specific question it answers: 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges (which likely provides current edge data) by focusing on time-series analysis and trend classification.

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 implies when to use the tool—for analyzing the persistence and decay of edges over time—by contrasting fresh vs. old wide edges. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use polymarket_edges for current edges', but the context and reference to snapshots make the intended usage clear. The response format further clarifies what the tool provides, reinforcing its specific use case.

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

All dogsapi 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 have genuinely unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are described as currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded shares the same router, and the polymarket_edges/arbitrage/fill_risk/bet_research group overlaps heavily in purpose. The remaining clusters (dog data, memory, subscriptions) are mostly distinct, so the confusion is concentrated in a few spots but severe there.

Naming Consistency3/5

Nearly all names are lower_snake_case and readable, but the conventions are mixed: get_/list_/ask_/scan_ verb-noun names sit alongside bare verbs (remember, forget, recall), noun-phrase names (entity_profile, bet_research, pipeworx_trending), and a versioned suffix (ask_pipeworx_beta). No single predictable pattern covers the whole set.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, the server is well past the 25+ threshold for feeling bloated, and the count is dominated by unrelated Pipeworx, prediction-market, and AI-visibility tools rather than the dog-data domain implied by 'dogsapi'. Only four tools actually serve the dog API, making the surface both oversized and misaligned with the server name.

Completeness3/5

The broad data-access side is thorough, covering discovery, universal routing, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, memory, and subscriptions. However, the nominal dog domain is thin (list/get/groups/facts with no filtering or additional operations), subscriptions have no update path, and some one-off tools like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency exist without any surrounding lifecycle.

Resources