Skip to main content
Glama

Exa

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
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant behavioral context: snapshot-based, decay computed on absolute value, negative for SELL YES, expired opportunities, and TTL limits. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is lengthy but well-structured: purpose first, then response format, then limits. Every sentence adds unique information. Could be slightly more concise, but the density of useful details justifies the length.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fully explains the return structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and covers limitations (60-day TTL, snapshot gaps). This is comprehensive for a tool with only two optional parameters.

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 value by explaining default values (14 days, '1wk'), clamp range (2-30), and window options (24hr, 1wk, 1mo), which are not in the schema descriptions.

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 provides 'edge persistence and decay telemetry' and answers a specific question about edge duration. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'polymarket_edges' by focusing on time-series and decay, not just snapshots.

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 usage for evaluating edge persistence but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'polymarket_edges'. There is no 'when not to use' guidance, which leaves some ambiguity.

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

All Exa 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 share the same basic purpose: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to data sources, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx. The polymarket_* family has five overlapping tools (edges, arbitrage, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread), though detailed descriptions and explicit 'use when' guidance help separate them. Overall, an agent can generally pick the right tool but faces real ambiguity in the query-router and betting clusters.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case convention (search, get_contents, resolve_entity, validate_claim, subscribe, unsubscribe). However, several noun-first names break the pattern: entity_profile, ai_visibility_check, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, and the polymarket_* family, plus adjective-noun names like recent_alerts and recent_changes. The deviations are readable and mostly clustered around product-specific domains, so the inconsistency is minor.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, this significantly exceeds the 25+ threshold for a heavy tool surface. The server bundles four distinct domains — web search, structured data routing, prediction-market analysis, and memory/subscriptions — into one MCP endpoint, which inflates the count. While each domain has some justification, a more focused split into separate servers would yield better coherence.

Completeness4/5

The surface is remarkably thorough for its blended scope: search has query/retrieve/similar/within, structured data has default/grounded/beta/deep-research modes, subscriptions have full lifecycle coverage, and memory has save/recall/delete. Minor gaps exist, such as no subscription-update tool and no direct pipeworx:// URI reader in the tool list, but these are workable. The prediction-market and entity-analysis workflows are covered end to end.

Resources