Skip to main content
Glama

Newsdata

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

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral details: data sources (daily snapshots on cache-miss), output structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates), and field explanations (edge_pp_net signed by direction, decay, lifespan). No contradictions with annotations.

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 a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by argument details and response explanation. It is slightly verbose but packs necessary information. Could be tightened slightly without losing 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 output fields (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates) and their meaning. Includes limitations (60-day TTL, cache-miss gaps). Covers all necessary contextual details for an agent to understand usage and results.

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 covers both parameters (days, window) with descriptions. The description restates defaults and provides context (e.g., 'snapshot family' for window) but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 for 100% schema coverage.

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: providing edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots. It uses specific verbs (answers, tracks) and resource (edge persistence over time). It distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on time-series 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 Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives explicit context for when to use the tool (assessing edge age and decay, differentiating fresh vs old edges). It implies alternatives (polymarket_edges for current data) but does not explicitly state when not to use it. The 'LIMITS' section adds practical constraints.

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

All Newsdata 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have detailed usage guidance, but there are several overlapping entry points: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical), ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research; discover_tools vs suggest_questions; entity_profile vs recent_changes; and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence. The descriptions help, but the boundaries are not always crisp enough to prevent misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are mostly lower_snake_case, but conventions vary widely: some are verb-first (list_subscriptions, resolve_entity), some are noun/adjective phrases (recent_changes, entity_profile), and several use brand prefixes (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_arbitrage). The naming is readable but lacks a single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well past the 25+ threshold and the scope sprawls beyond news/data into prediction-market arbitrage, npm dependency scanning, AI visibility audits, memory, subscriptions, and llms.txt generation. Each tool may be useful, but the set feels like several different servers merged into one, making it oversized and harder to navigate.

Completeness4/5

The research workflow is well covered: universal routing, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution/profiles/comparisons, change feeds, discovery/onboarding, subscriptions, and memory all exist. Minor gaps include no direct pipeworx:// citation fetch tool and no broader account/profile management, but agents can work around these.

Resources