Skip to main content
Glama

Gtex

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 (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) already convey safety. The description goes beyond by detailing output structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), field semantics (trend, decay_pp_per_day), and data source limitations (non-intraday, TTL, cache-miss gaps). No contradictions 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 front-loaded with purpose and well-structured with sections (RESPONSE, LIMITS). However, it is relatively long (multiple paragraphs) and could be slightly more concise for an agent to parse quickly. The detail is justified by complexity.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fully explains the response format (tracked with time-series, expired with lifespan, snapshot_dates). It covers parameter constraints, data source caveats, and edge case behavior (gaps, signed values). No missing critical information.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description restates defaults and constraints ('default 14', 'snapshot family') but adds no new semantic meaning beyond schema. Baseline score 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?

The description explicitly states the tool provides 'edge persistence and decay telemetry' from snapshots, answering a specific question about edge longevity. It clearly differentiates from sibling polymarket_edges by focusing on time-series tracking rather than current snapshots.

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 explains when to use the tool (to assess edge freshness versus age) and includes LIMITS with TTL constraints. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like polymarket_edges or other tracking tools, leaving some inference to the agent.

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

All Gtex 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
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently described as functionally identical, which is a direct ambiguity, and ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence plus the polymarket_* tools create several overlapping boundaries. The long descriptions help, but an agent still has to read deep into each one to avoid selecting the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use readable lowercase snake_case verb_noun names like discover_tools, resolve_entity, and validate_claim, but the set also includes bare nouns like gene and tissues, verb-only memory tools like remember/recall/forget, and noun-phrase names like entity_profile, recent_changes, and pipeworx_trending. The style is not chaotic, but no single convention is sustained.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools exceeds the 25+ threshold and the surface is heavily padded with overlapping meta-tools, near-duplicate routers, and unrelated clusters such as Polymarket arbitrage, AI-visibility checks, and GTEx expression queries. For a server named Gtex, most of these tools are outside the apparent domain, making the count feel overgrown rather than well-scoped.

Completeness2/5

The GTEx-specific subset has only five tools and lacks obvious endpoints like multi-issue eQTLs, isoform expression, or sample-level querying, while the remaining 31 tools belong to unrelated Pipeworx, Polymarket, memory, and subscription domains. There is no coherent single purpose against which the surface can be considered complete, so agents will often hit dead ends or spend calls figuring out what the server is actually for.

Resources