Skip to main content
Glama

Jina Reader

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

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing the snapshot source, potential data gaps, TTL, and response structure. It explains that snapshots are written on cache-miss, affecting completeness. 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 the core purpose and query, then details response format and limits. It is dense but every sentence adds value; slightly long but 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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully details the response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) and important fields (trend, decay_pp_per_day, lifespan_days). It covers edge cases like gaps and TTL limits. Very complete.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description repeats some schema info but adds context about 'window' being a 'snapshot family' and relates to response dates. Minor added value; baseline 3.

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 it provides edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots, answering a specific question about edge duration. It distinguishes from siblings like 'polymarket_edges' by focusing on history vs. current 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?

The description explains the tool answers 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' and provides context about when to use it (e.g., different trading decisions for fresh vs. old edges). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternative tools, but the purpose is clear.

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

All Jina Reader 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have clearly distinct roles, but there is notable overlap in the ask_pipeworx family (stable, beta, grounded, deep_research), and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly described as currently identical to ask_pipeworx. discover_tools and suggest_questions also both serve as meta-guidance, creating some selection ambiguity. The very detailed descriptions help, but they do not fully remove the risk of misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set mixes verb-first names like compare_entities and validate_claim with noun-first names like entity_profile and polymarket_edges, along with prefix families (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, ask_pipeworx_*) and bare verbs like forget and search. Everything is snake_case and readable, but there is no single predictable convention across the whole surface.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools for a server labeled 'Jina Reader' is a sprawling surface spanning data routing, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and web reading. Even if each tool is individually focused, the count and combined scope feel oversized relative to the server name and the rubric's guidance for well-scoped servers.

Completeness4/5

Each sub-domain has good lifecycle coverage: memory (remember/recall/forget), subscriptions (subscribe/unsubscribe/list_subscriptions/recent_alerts), entity research (resolve_entity/entity_profile/compare_entities/recent_changes/validate_claim), and Polymarket analysis (edges/arbitrage/fill_risk/kalshi_spread). There are minor gaps like no order execution or simple page summarization, but those appear intentionally out of scope, leaving the surface largely complete.

Resources