Skip to main content
Glama

exchangerate

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: 60-day snapshot TTL, gaps meaning no scan, decay computed from daily closes, and the difference between signed edge values. This goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints and provides valuable operational nuances.

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 exceptionally well-organized with clear sections (ARGS, RESPONSE, LIMITS). Every sentence adds critical detail, and the purpose is front-loaded. The structure makes the length acceptable and the content highly scannable.

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?

The description thoroughly explains the response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), the meaning of derived metrics, and the limitations of the data. With no output schema, this detail is essential and does not rely on external documentation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already describes both parameters with defaults and allowed values. The description mostly restates parameter semantics (e.g., days lookback, window family) with minor additions like 'snapshot family' and 'max 30', but does not significantly enrich beyond the 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 purpose: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots.' It answers a specific question about edge age and decay, and the focus on persistence distinguishes it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges, which likely provides current edges.

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 this tool: 'a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old wide edge are different trades' – suggesting it is for assessing edge longevity. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Clear context, but no explicit exclusions.

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

All exchangerate 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

Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-duplicates, while deep_research, validate_claim, and bet_research blur the same routing/grounding line. The polymarket_* family also has five tools covering edges, arbitrage, fill risk, and edge decay with significant functional overlap, making misselection likely despite very detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes verb_noun tools (get_pair, compare_entities, suggest_questions) with noun-style tools (entity_profile, recent_changes, bet_research) and bare verbs (remember, recall, forget). The polymarket_ and pipeworx_ prefixes add some structure, but overall the naming is inconsistent and doesn't follow a predictable pattern.

Tool Count1/5

The server is named 'exchangerate' but exposes 33 tools, only two of which (get_pair, get_rates) relate to exchange rates. Even as a general data platform 33 tools is at the extreme high end, and for the stated server purpose the count is wildly inappropriate.

Completeness1/5

For an exchange-rate server, the surface is severely incomplete: there is no historical rate lookup, no amount conversion, no supported-currency listing, and no rate-change monitoring. The actual tool content covers a broad research platform, but that is entirely mismatched with the server name, leaving the implied exchange-rate domain almost completely uncovered.

Resources