Skip to main content
Glama

Latam Validate

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds beyond that: how data is computed (from daily snapshots, time-series, decay per day), what the response includes (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), and limitations (snapshot gaps, not intraday). No contradiction.

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 relatively long but each sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the core question and structured response. A slight reduction in verbosity could improve conciseness, but it is still 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?

Given no output schema, the description fully explains the response structure (tracked with time-series, trend, decay; expired with lifespan; snapshot_dates). It covers data source, computation, and limitations. For a read-only tool with two optional parameters, this is comprehensive.

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. The description adds meaning: days lookback default 14, max 30 (clamp 2-30), window specifies snapshot family (24hr, 1wk, 1mo). It explains the purpose of each parameter beyond 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?

The description clearly states the verb (answers 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?') and resource (edge persistence and decay telemetry from polymarket_edges snapshots). It distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on time-series and decay 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 Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states the question the tool answers, implying when to use it (when longevity matters). It contrasts with sibling tools implicitly: fresh vs. old edges are different trades. It also notes limits (60-day TTL, daily closes) that guide usage.

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

All Latam Validate 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route the same 5,702 tools with only subtle differences, and ai_visibility_check is essentially a single-entity subset of scan_competitor_ai_presence. The memory trio (remember/recall/forget) and subscription tools also sit awkwardly alongside the data-query tools, making selection genuinely ambiguous.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes verb_noun (validate_cnpj, resolve_entity, compare_entities), noun_verb (bet_research, entity_profile, recent_changes), and bare nouns with inconsistent suffixes (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk). The ask_pipeworx family uses inconsistent qualifiers (beta vs grounded), and validate_* is used for both checksum-only tools and full lookups.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is excessive for a server ostensibly named 'Latam Validate' — only 5 tools relate to LATAM validation while the rest form a sprawling general-purpose data and prediction-market platform. Many tools could be consolidated (the ask_pipeworx family, the polymarket_* family, the memory trio), suggesting the set is over-scoped for any single agent's typical workflow.

Completeness2/5

For the stated LATAM validation purpose, coverage is thin: only Brazil (CPF/CNPJ/CEP/banks) and Mexico (CLABE) are covered, with no validators for other LATAM jurisdictions. For the broader Pipeworx data platform, the surface is extensive but has notable gaps — grounded retrieval, claim verification, and arbitrage tools exist, yet many LatAm-specific data sources and common validation formats (RFC, RUT, DNI, CURP) are absent.

Resources