Skip to main content
Glama

Ipma Pt

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds rich behavioral detail: reads from daily snapshots, returns time-series with first_seen, trend, decay, expired opportunities, and limitations (60-day TTL, daily closes not intraday). No contradictions.

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 well-structured with front-loaded purpose, detailed response fields explained, and limitations at the end. Every sentence is informative and earns its place.

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 no output schema, description comprehensively covers return structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) with field explanations. For a 2-param tool, this is complete and leaves no ambiguity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds context: defaults (14 days, '1wk'), maximums (30 days), and explains the response structure, which supplements 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?

Description clearly states the tool provides edge persistence and decay telemetry, answering 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'. It distinguishes from siblings like polymarket_edges by focusing on time-series analysis rather than raw 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?

Description explains when to use (to assess edge age and decay) and provides context (fresh vs aged edge), but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives. However, the context is clear enough for an agent.

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

All Ipma Pt 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

The ask_pipeworx / ask_pipeworx_beta / ask_pipeworx_grounded / deep_research cluster overlaps heavily on question-routing, and the six polymarket_* tools all operate on prediction-market edges and can be confused. The ipma_*, memory, and subscription tools are distinct, but the overlapping clusters create real misselection risk.

Naming Consistency3/5

Snake_case is used throughout and there are clear prefix groups (ipma_*, ask_pipeworx, polymarket_*), but the rest mix verb-first (compare_entities, discover_tools), noun-first (entity_profile, bet_research), and bare verbs (remember, recall, forget). Readable overall, but no consistent verb_noun convention.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is heavy, and the server name 'Ipma Pt' implies a narrow Portugal-weather service while 31 of the tools belong to a broad Pipeworx data/prediction-market platform. The scope mismatch makes the count feel bloated rather than curated.

Completeness4/5

The dominant Pipeworx domain is well covered: querying, grounded answers, deep research, entity resolution, comparison, claim validation, subscriptions, memory, and tool discovery are all present with few dead ends. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no general web search tool, thin IPMA historical/warning coverage), but agents can work around them.

Resources