Skip to main content
Glama

Fac

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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds rich behavioral detail: response structure with tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[], trend categories (new|widening|stable|decaying), decay_pp_per_day sign convention, and limitations (snapshot TTL, daily closes). This goes far beyond what annotations provide.

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 fairly long but well-structured: front-loaded purpose, then response format, then limitations. Every sentence adds value; the LIMITS section is particularly useful. Could be slightly shorter but still efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully documents the response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[], including subfields like first_seen, trend, decay_pp_per_day, lifespan_days). It also explains the computation of trend and decay. For a tool with 2 optional params, this is very 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 adequate descriptions. The description adds nuance: default days=14 with clamp 2-30, default window='1wk', and explains window as 'snapshot family'. This adds meaning 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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots.' It answers the exact question 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' and distinguishes from sibling polymarket_edges by focusing on time-series 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?

The description gives clear context on when to use: for evaluating edge persistence and comparing fresh vs old edges. It includes limitations like snapshot TTL and decay computation method, but does not explicitly mention specific alternative tools or when not to use. However, the context implies that for current single-edges, use polymarket_edges instead.

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

All Fac 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools occupy the same "answer a factual question" niche: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, and bet_research all route to the same underlying catalog, so an agent must parse subtle differences to pick correctly. scan_competitor_ai_presence also wraps ai_visibility_check, adding another near-duplicate. The detailed descriptions help, but the boundaries are genuinely fuzzy.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set mixes several conventions: fac_*, polymarket_*, and pipeworx_* prefixes coexist with bare verbs (remember, recall, forget, subscribe, unsubscribe) and noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes, bet_research). ask_pipeworx_beta/grounded use a suffix pattern while pipeworx_feedback/trending use a prefix, so there is no single predictable scheme. Still, most names are readable and describe what they do.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and creates a heavy surface for any client to load and reason about. The broad data-platform scope explains some of the count, but many tools are meta-variants of the same query/research capability rather than genuinely distinct operations.

Completeness4/5

For the server's apparent purpose—authoritative data lookup, research, prediction-market analysis, and account/feed management—the surface covers the core lifecycle: query, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, recent changes, claim verification, subscriptions, alerts, and memory. Minor gaps exist (no direct tool to fetch a pipeworx:// citation URI; no raw per-pack access), but most workflows are supported.

Resources