Skip to main content
Glama

Jsonschema

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses key behavioral traits: snapshots are written on cache-miss, gaps indicate no scan that day, history is bounded by a 60-day TTL, and decay is based on daily closes of edge_pp_net rather than intraday data. These details help the agent anticipate data availability and interpretation.

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 lengthy but well-structured with intro, Args, RESPONSE, and LIMITS sections. Every sentence carries useful information, and the front-loaded purpose makes it easy to grasp. The length is justified by the richness of the output format and the need to explain snapshot semantics, though it could be tightened slightly.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return structure: tracked[] with fields like edge_pp_net time-series, first_seen, trend, and decay_pp_per_day; expired[] with lifespan_days; and snapshot_dates[]. It also covers limitations like TTL and daily-close basis, making it exceptionally complete for a telemetry tool.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of both parameters ('days' with default/clamp and 'window' with possible values). The description's restatement of defaults adds little beyond the schema. It does offer minor context about the meaning of 'snapshot family', but the schema is equally explicit, so the description provides no significant additional parameter value.

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 identifies the tool as tracking edge persistence and decay, answering the specific question 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling polymarket_edges by focusing on historical telemetry across snapshots rather than 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 provides a clear usage context: it is for evaluating whether an edge is fresh or aged, noting that 'a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old wide edge are different trades'. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context makes it evident when this tool is appropriate in contrast to single-snapshot edge tools.

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

All Jsonschema 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
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded share the same routing and response shape, while the polymarket_* family and company-research tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes) have overlapping triggers. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent can still easily select the wrong variant.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are readable and consistently snake_case, with recognizable families like ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, and pipeworx_*. However, conventions mix verb_noun patterns (compare_entities, resolve_entity) with noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, pipeworx_trending), so the pattern is not fully consistent.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is heavy for any single server, and nearly all of them are unrelated to the 'Jsonschema' name—only validate_json_schema actually addresses JSON Schema. Even viewed as a Pipeworx data/research toolkit, the set feels bloated with near-duplicate query and prediction-market variants.

Completeness2/5

If the intended domain is JSON Schema, the surface is severely incomplete: only validation exists, with no parsing, generation, or schema-management tools. If the intended domain is the Pipeworx data-research suite, it is more complete but still lacks a raw record-fetch tool despite citations promising pipeworx:// URIs, and the server-name mismatch creates a confusing dead end.

Resources