Skip to main content
Glama

Govcon Intel

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: 60-day snapshot TTL, cache-miss gaps, decay computed on daily closes, and the tracked vs expired distinction. This goes well 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Description is dense but well-organized with ARGS and RESPONSE labels. Every sentence earns its place by explaining behavior, limits, or return shape; no filler or redundancy.

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 lacking an output schema, the description fully specifies the response fields and their meaning, explains data gaps and TTL, and covers parameter constraints. Highly complete for a read-only analytics tool with simple parameters.

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 covers both parameters fully (defaults, clamps, and enum-like values). The description merely restates the defaults without adding new semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states a specific analytic purpose ('how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?') and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on persistence/decay rather than current edge values. The verb 'tracker' plus explicit telemetry framing makes the scope clear.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use (evaluating edge persistence over time) and explains the trade relevance of edge age. However, no explicit exclusions or named alternatives are given, leaving some burden on the agent to infer differentiation from siblings.

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

All Govcon Intel 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence; ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research). However, detailed descriptions and specific use cases help agents distinguish between them in most cases.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use snake_case naming consistently, e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, govcon_agency_landscape. The pattern is uniform across the entire set.

Tool Count4/5

With 33 tools, the set is slightly over the typical well-scoped range. While many tools serve distinct purposes, some seem redundant (e.g., memory tools, multiple research tools), making the count feel a bit heavy.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers a broad range of research and intelligence domains but lacks actionable tools for core government contracting tasks like submitting bids or tracking contract performance. Several obvious operations (e.g., user profile management, submission tools) are missing.

Resources