Skip to main content
Glama

Missouri License Offices

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds significant detail: response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), decay computation, edge signed by trade direction, and snapshot gaps. 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?

The description is well-structured with sections for response and limits, but it is relatively long. It could be slightly more concise while retaining clarity.

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 thoroughly explains the return fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and their sub-fields (trend, decay_pp_per_day, lifespan_days, etc.). It also covers edge cases like snapshot gaps and the 60-day TTL, making it self-contained.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds defaults (days=14, window='1wk'), clamps (days 2-30), and explains that window corresponds to snapshot families. This adds 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's purpose: answering questions about edge persistence and decay using daily snapshots. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'polymarket_edges' by focusing on telemetry and time-series analysis.

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 context on when to use the tool (to differentiate fresh vs aged edges) and mentions limits (60-day TTL, snapshot gaps). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'polymarket_arbitrage' or 'polymarket_fill_risk'.

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

All Missouri License Offices 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Multiple tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical today), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, and discover_tools all route natural-language data questions, while entity_profile, recent_changes, compare_entities, and resolve_entity overlap around company data. An agent cannot reliably distinguish which retrieval entry point to choose.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are almost uniformly lowercase snake_case and mostly follow a recognizable verb_noun or domain-prefixed pattern (ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, scan_*, recent_*, subscribe/unsubscribe). A few names like deep_research, entity_profile, and bet_research break the verb-first style, but there is no chaotic convention mixing.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is too many for the apparent scope, and more importantly only one tool (mo_dmv_license_offices) matches the server name 'Missouri License Offices.' The other 31 tools form a general data-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription platform that has little to do with the stated purpose.

Completeness4/5

Judged as the broad Pipeworx-style research platform the descriptions reveal, the surface is quite complete: simple and grounded querying, deep multi-source research, claim verification, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, change feeds, discovery, subscriptions, alerts, and memory. For the literal Missouri license-office purpose, however, only the single lookup tool is present, which drags down completeness despite that tool being reasonably thorough.

Resources