Skip to main content
Glama

Elexon

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

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses important behavioral details beyond the annotations: limits (60-day TTL, decay from daily closes, not intraday), snapshot gaps, and that decay numbers come from daily closes. This adds value 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured: purpose, args, response breakdown, limitations. It is dense but every sentence adds value. Slightly long but appropriate for the complexity; front-loads the core idea.

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 thoroughly explains the response fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and their meaning, along with constraints (TTL, decay computation). It is comprehensive for a read-only telemetry tool.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters (days, window) with defaults and clamping/options. The description adds context on how they affect the output but does not provide significant new details beyond the schema. Baseline 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 states the tool's purpose: providing edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily polymarket_edges snapshots. It uses specific verbs and resources, and the example of a fresh vs. old wide edge illustrates the need. This distinguishes it from siblings like polymarket_edges (raw edges) and polymarket_arbitrage.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool (for historical persistence analysis) via the example, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. It lacks direct 'use this for X, use that for Y' guidance.

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

All Elexon 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
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research heavily overlap as high-level routing entry points, and the five Polymarket tools (edges, arbitrage, edge_tracker, fill_risk, bet_research) cover closely related concerns. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent can easily select the wrong entry point.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and readable, but conventions are mixed: verb-first names (query_dataset, validate_claim, discover_tools) coexist with noun-phrase names (system_demand, entity_profile, recent_changes), and prefix families are applied inconsistently (elexon_* and polymarket_* exist, but bet_research, generation_by_fuel, and system_demand have no prefix). The pattern is understandable but not predictable enough to be considered consistent.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold for a heavy surface, and many tools are orthogonal to the nominal Elexon scope: memory (remember/recall/forget), subscriptions, npm dependency scanning, and llms.txt generation. The count forces significant discovery overhead and makes the set feel bloated rather than well-scoped.

Completeness4/5

The Elexon core is solid: elexon_list_datasets plus query_dataset covers all 84 BMRS datasets, with direct shortcuts for system prices, generation by fuel, and system demand. The broader Pipeworx side also covers research, entity resolution, prediction-market analysis, memory, and subscriptions without obvious dead ends, though a few minor gaps exist such as limited non-npm dependency scanning and no direct Elexon-specific tools for every dataset family.

Resources