Skip to main content
Glama

Espn

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Polymarket Edges

polymarket_edges
Read-onlyIdempotent

Scan top Polymarket markets and return opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price. Built for "what should I bet on today" — agents discover opportunities without paging hundreds of markets. FIVE MODEL FAMILIES grouped into three response segments under by_segment: (1) MODEL_DRIVEN — crypto_price (lognormal barrier from 90d FRED log-returns) and news_momentum (GDELT 7d/21d article-volume ratio, soft signal w/ halved Kelly). (2) STRUCTURAL_ARBITRAGE — partition_overround on mutually-exclusive events; per-leg favorite-longshot bias correction with per-sport α (tennis 1.02, soccer 1.10, MMA 1.15, default 1.0); placeholder-slug filter drops will-person-X / will-team-Y / will-manager-Z / will-someone-else- backstops; partitions with >20% placeholder fraction skipped entirely. (3) CONCENTRATED_LONGSHOT — basket trade when one leg ≥75% AND ≥2 longshots ≤8% AND portfolio return ≥25:1; rare-by-design (gates relaxed Run 8 from prior 85%/5%/50:1). EVERY OPPORTUNITY carries edge_pp_net (after slippage), kelly_fraction + kelly_fraction_half (capped at 0.25), market.liquidity, market.spread_pp, market.volume, plus a 24h-move warning ("Market moved X.Xpp in 24h") when the recent move alone exceeds the edge — your edge may already be in the price. TRADEABLE-EDGE KNOBS: min_liquidity / max_spread_pp drop opportunities where edge isn't realizable; min_partition_leg_kelly filters partitions by best per-leg Kelly. RESPONSE TOP-LEVEL: by_segment{model_driven,structural_arbitrage,concentrated_longshot}, fed_candidates/fed_note (Fed bets surface here, excluded from ranking — 1m-T vs EFFR signal is unreliable at meeting-month horizons without paid OIS/SOFR-futures data), and _diagnostics{concentrated_longshot:{...funnel counters},category_counts,filter_skips} so callers can see WHY a segment is empty (top-N stale, all candidates failed gates, knob dropped them). Cached 1h at the KV level keyed on all knobs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoTop N edges to return after ranking. Default 10, max 25.
windowNoPolymarket volume window to filter markets. Default 1wk.
min_kellyNoMinimum half-Kelly fraction (as decimal, e.g. 0.005 = 0.5% of bankroll) to include single-leg opportunities. Default 0 (no filter). Skips opportunities that are too small to bet sensibly even if the edge is large.
min_edge_ppNoMinimum |edge| in percentage points to include (default 0.5). Edge is evaluated NET of slippage.
slippage_ppNoAssumed execution slippage in percentage points per leg (default 0.3). Subtracted from raw |edge| before ranking and Kelly sizing. Polymarket has zero trading fees as of 2024 but bid/ask + thin depth typically eats 20-50bp per trade. Bump for very thin partitions; drop to 0 if you have a smarter fill model.
max_spread_ppNoTradeable-edge filter. Maximum bid/ask spread in percentage points on the representative market. Default null (no filter). Set to 2 to require tight books — anything wider eats most plausible edges.
min_liquidityNoTradeable-edge filter. Minimum $ liquidity on the representative market (or for partition_overround, on at least one top_leg). Default 0 (no filter). Set to 5000 to drop thin-book opportunities where executing the edge would walk the book past breakeven.
category_filterNoComma-separated list to restrict the output: "model_driven" (crypto_price + news_momentum), "structural_arbitrage" (partition_overround), "concentrated_longshot". Combine like "model_driven,structural_arbitrage". Default: all.
min_partition_leg_kellyNoMinimum BEST per-leg half-Kelly fraction across a partition_overround opportunity's top_legs (or longshot_basket legs). Default 0 (no filter). Partition arbs always return kelly_fraction_half=0 at the parent level by design (basket trades don't compose to single-leg Kelly), so min_kelly never filters them — this knob applies to the per-leg Kelly inside top_legs instead. Use to suppress thin partitions whose individual leg edges aren't worth the per-leg slippage cost.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds extensive behavioral context beyond annotations: caching at KV level for 1 hour, detailed methodology for each model family (e.g., lognormal barrier from FRED, GDELT volume ratio), and diagnostic fields like 'filter_skips' that show why segments might be empty. No contradiction 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is comprehensive but verbose, consisting of multiple paragraphs with technical details that may overwhelm users. It is structured by segments and knobs, but lacks bullet points or concise summaries. While front-loaded with purpose, the density of information could be reduced for quicker comprehension.

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 structure (by_segment, fed_candidates, diagnostics), all opportunity fields (edge_pp_net, kelly_fraction, market.liquidity, etc.), and knob effects. It covers why segments might be empty (diagnostics) and Fed signal limitations. Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, three model families), the description is remarkably complete.

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% with all parameters documented. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining inter-parameter relationships (e.g., 'min_partition_leg_kelly' overrides 'min_kelly' for partitions, slippage_pp defaults and context about Polymarket fees). Some parameters like 'category_filter' have additional context but are already clear in 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 verb ('scan' and 'return opportunities'), resource ('top Polymarket markets'), and specific purpose ('where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'polymarket_arbitrage' by focusing on Pipeworx disagreement signals and providing a comprehensive opportunity discovery mechanism without paging.

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 explicitly targets 'what should I bet on today' use case and explains the three segments with their conditions. It provides context for when to use the tool (discovering trading opportunities) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'polymarket_arbitrage'. The detailed knob descriptions implicitly guide usage.

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

All Espn 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
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools cluster around similar purposes—the three ask_pipeworx variants, the five polymarket_* analysis tools, and the meta/discovery tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_trending)—so an agent could plausibly call the wrong one. However, the descriptions are exceptionally detailed with explicit 'use this when' guidance, which mitigates most confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are almost all snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun or resource_action pattern: ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, remember, get_scoreboard, polymarket_fill_risk, etc. Pairs like remember/recall/forget and subscribe/unsubscribe are consistent, but the broader set mixes verbs, nouns, and prefixes (ask_, pipeworx_, polymarket_, get_, scan_) without a unified scheme.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well over the 25-tool 'heavy' threshold, and the set spans multiple unrelated domains: sports data, a general structured-data router, prediction-market analysis, memory storage, and user feedback. Many tools are meta or auxiliary (suggest_questions, pipeworx_feedback, remember/recall/forget) that don't clearly belong to the server's core purpose, making the set feel bloated.

Completeness3/5

For a sports-data server, core score/news/standings/team/schedule operations exist, but player stats, game details, injuries, and playoff brackets are missing. For the broader Pipeworx data platform the surface is extensive, but the mix of domains makes it hard to declare the set complete for any single stated purpose.

Resources