Skip to main content
Glama

Google_calendar

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe and non-mutating. The description adds substantial detail beyond annotations: it explains data source (daily snapshots), computation of trend/decay, limits (60-day TTL, daily closes, not intraday). 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 fairly long but every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the core question. The structure is somewhat dense with inline response format, but overall efficient. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for response fields) but not wasteful.

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?

No output schema is provided, yet the description thoroughly specifies the response structure: tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[], including field meanings (trend, decay_pp_per_day, lifespan_days). It also notes limitations (60-day TTL, snapshot gaps). This makes the tool's behavior fully understandable.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with basic descriptions. The description adds meaningful context: 'days' is explained as lookback with default and max, 'window' as snapshot family with default. It also clarifies the meaning of values (e.g., negative edge_pp_net = SELL YES). This adds value 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. It answers the specific question 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' and uses concrete examples (fresh vs 3-week-old edge). It distinguishes from siblings like polymarket_edges by focusing on historical time-series analysis.

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 context (e.g., 'a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old wide edge are different trades') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like polymarket_edges or polymarket_arbitrage. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All Google_calendar 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The tool set is a mix of 5 Google Calendar tools and 31 unrelated Pipeworx tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx, deep_research, entity_profile). Even within Pipeworx, tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded have highly overlapping purposes, making it very difficult for an agent to distinguish which tool to use.

Naming Consistency1/5

Naming conventions are chaotic. The Google Calendar tools follow a consistent gcal_ prefix, but the rest use various patterns: pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, single words (remember, recall), and others (bet_research, scan_dependency). There is no overarching pattern.

Tool Count1/5

With 36 tools, the count is high, but only 5 are relevant to Google Calendar. The remaining 31 tools are from a completely different domain (Pipeworx data access, Polymarket betting, etc.), making the tool count severely inappropriate for the server's stated purpose.

Completeness2/5

For Google Calendar, the tools provide basic CRUD (create, get, list, search, list_calendars) but lack update and delete functionality. The vast number of unrelated tools does not compensate for these gaps. The overall surface is incomplete for the calendar domain.

Resources