Skip to main content
Glama

Metals Api

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, etc. The description goes beyond by explaining data source gaps ('snapshots are written when polymarket_edges runs on a cache-miss'), TTL limits ('60-day snapshot TTL'), and the specific computation basis ('daily closes of edge_pp_net, not intraday'). This is rich behavioral context that adds significant value.

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 dense but well-structured with labels (Args, RESPONSE, LIMITS) and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence provides actionable information—no filler. Despite length, it earns its space by explaining response fields and edge cases.

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 thoroughly explains the response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) including field meanings and calculations. It also covers limitations (TTL, cache-miss gaps) and data interpretation, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minor context like 'snapshot family' for window and reasserts defaults, but does not provide substantial meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the descriptive burden.

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's purpose: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots.' It uses a specific verb ('answers') and a concrete resource (edge persistence/decay), distinguishing it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on time-series behavior 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 clear context: 'Answers "how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?"' This implies when to use the tool (when edge age and decay matter). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the relationship to polymarket_edges is evident from the description, making the usage context reasonably clear.

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

All Metals Api 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

Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are variants of the same router, and the six polymarket_* tools cover overlapping arbitrage/edge analysis territory. ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence and discover_tools vs suggest_questions add further boundary ambiguity. While descriptions try to differentiate, an agent could easily misselect among these clusters.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are readable snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern: verbs vary (ask, get, list, scan, search, suggest, validate, generate, compare) and several tools are named by product prefix (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*) rather than by action. The pattern is predictable within clusters but inconsistent across the set.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is heavy for the server's stated name, 'Metals Api', which only has two metals-related tools (get_historical, get_latest). Even as a general data-research server, the surface is bloated with memory utilities, subscription management, feedback, trending, and unrelated AI-visibility scanning. The scope mismatch makes the count feel unjustified.

Completeness3/5

The core metals domain is thin: latest and single-date historical prices exist, but there is no time-series range query, no list of supported metals, and no explicit currency conversion endpoint. The broader data-research/subscription/memory surface is relatively complete, but it is disconnected from the server's apparent purpose, leaving notable gaps for a metals-focused agent.

Resources