Skip to main content
Glama

Microsoft Todo

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds substantial context: daily snapshots, decay from daily closes, TTL limits, gaps, and response structure. No contradictions.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and key concept. Detailed but not excessively verbose given the tool's complexity. Could potentially trim minor details but remains well-structured.

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?

No output schema exists; description fully explains response fields (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) with interpretation. Covers limits, defaults, and edge cases comprehensively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions. Description adds defaults (days=14, max 30; window='1wk'), clamps, and context (decay uses default slippage). Adds value beyond 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 it provides edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots, answering a specific question. It distinguishes from siblings like polymarket_edges (current edges) and polymarket_arbitrage.

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?

Describes use case for assessing edge history vs freshness, and contrasts a fresh wide edge with an old one. Implicitly advises against intraday use but does not explicitly reference sibling tools for alternatives.

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

All Microsoft Todo 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The set is dominated by overlapping Pipeworx and prediction-market tools, with ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly described as currently identical, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and discover_tools serving heavily overlapping lookup purposes. The four Microsoft To Do tools are buried among 31 unrelated tools, making it very hard for an agent to select the right tool for the server's apparent domain.

Naming Consistency2/5

Most names are snake_case, but the naming conventions are otherwise mixed: there are verb_noun tools like list_tasks and get_task, bare verbs like remember/forget/recall, prefixed families like polymarket_*, and noun-phrase names like entity_profile, recent_changes, and pipeworx_trending. The lack of a consistent pattern across the set, especially relative to the Microsoft To Do server name, makes naming unpredictable.

Tool Count1/5

35 tools is already heavy, but the bigger problem is that only 4 of them are for Microsoft To Do, the server's stated name and purpose. The remaining 31 tools belong to unrelated Pipeworx data, prediction-market, and memory-management domains, which is an extreme scope mismatch.

Completeness1/5

For a Microsoft To Do server, the surface is severely incomplete: list_task_lists, list_tasks, get_task, and find_due_tasks cover reading and browsing only, with no create, update, complete, or delete operations. Even the broader Pipeworx functionality is scattered and redundant rather than forming a coherent domain surface.

Resources