Skip to main content
Glama

lorem

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds substantial behavioral context: source from daily snapshots, TTL limits, signed edge_pp_net values, snapshot gaps due to cache-miss behavior, and decay computed on daily closes. This exceeds the baseline and provides the agent with meaningful operational knowledge.

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?

The description is long but information-dense; every sentence either clarifies the tool's purpose, explains response fields, or notes limitations. It is well-structured with clear sections for args, response, and limits, and avoids redundancy.

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 compensates by exhaustively detailing the response structure, including tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[], and their meanings. It also covers data freshness, snapshot gaps, and computational basis, making the tool's behavior and output fully predictable.

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 describes both parameters (days and window) with their defaults and clamps, so coverage is 100%. The description's prose repeats the defaults and adds 'snapshot family' context but provides little additional semantic value 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 tool provides edge persistence and decay telemetry, answering whether an edge is new or shrinking. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on time-series history rather than current edge values.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (to understand edge age/decay and differentiate fresh vs stale opportunities). However, it does not explicitly cite alternatives or state when not to use it, such as deferring to polymarket_edges for current edges only.

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

All lorem 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
Disambiguation1/5

Multiple tools have nearly identical purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all handle natural-language data queries, with ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly duplicating ask_pipeworx. The prediction-market cluster (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research) also heavily overlaps, and ai_visibility_check is a single-entity version of scan_competitor_ai_presence. An agent would frequently be unable to tell which tool to select.

Naming Consistency2/5

All names are snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (generate_llms_txt, resolve_entity), some are bare verbs (forget, recall, subscribe), and several are noun-first domain names (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending, entity_profile). There is no uniform verb convention, and the mix makes it hard to predict what a tool does from its name.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools, this is well above the 'heavy' threshold and includes several near-duplicates: three ask_pipeworx variants and six polymarket_* tools. While the underlying platform is broad, this meta-layer could be consolidated to 15-20 tools without losing capability.

Completeness4/5

The core data-query workflow is well covered: ask, deep research, entity profile, compare, validate, resolve ID, and search inside documents. The memory lifecycle (remember/recall/forget) and subscription lifecycle (subscribe/list/recent_alerts/unsubscribe) are also complete. However, the set includes unrelated utilities (generate_paragraphs, scan_dependency, generate_llms_txt) that don't belong to the main data domain, and there is no direct tool to execute a raw discovered tool by name.

Resources