Skip to main content
Glama

Duffel

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant behavioral context: snapshot TTL limits, computation methods (daily closes, not intraday), and data gap conditions. 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 well-organized with sections (RESPONSE, LIMITS) and front-loaded with the key question. Slightly long but all sentences add value; could be more terse in describing response fields.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully details the response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) including field meanings. Covers all aspects needed for usage.

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%, but the description adds meaning: default values, clamps for days, and interpretation of window families. Slightly exceeds baseline.

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 verb ('answers') and resource ('edge persistence and decay telemetry'), with specific outputs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on history 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?

Explicitly states the use case (differentiating fresh vs old edges) and provides default values for parameters. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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

All Duffel 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are near-duplicates or have blurry boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical today, and the six polymarket tools (edges, arbitrage, bet_research, fill_risk, edge_tracker, kalshi_spread) all target opportunity-finding in overlapping ways. Detailed descriptions help, but an agent can easily pick the wrong one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are readable snake_case with clear verbs like ask_, compare_, resolve_, and validate_, but conventions are mixed: noun-style names (entity_profile, recent_alerts, polymarket_edges) sit beside imperative verbs and domain-prefixed families. There is no camelCase or total chaos, so it is inconsistent but navigable.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is heavy and exceeds the well-scoped zone; the set spans flight search, general data Q&A, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and feedback. Many are platform meta-tools that could be consolidated or hidden behind the main ask_pipeworx router.

Completeness2/5

If Duffel is the intended domain, only duffel_flight_search is present—there is no offer detail, booking, order management, or cancellation, so travel workflows dead-end. As a generic Pipeworx data platform the surface is broader, but that only highlights the mismatch with the server name and a missing coherent domain.

Resources