Skip to main content
Glama

Numbers

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent. The description adds behavioral details like snapshot TTL, decay computation from daily closes, and data gaps. No contradiction 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 comprehensive but could be slightly more concise. It is well-structured with a clear opening, detailed response fields, and limitations.

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, so the description fully explains the response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and limitations (TTL, decay computation). This is highly complete for a complex tool.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters. The description adds context for 'days' (default 14, max 30) and 'window' (snapshot family, default '1wk'), enhancing the schema's meaning.

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, answering how long an edge has existed and if it is shrinking. It distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on historical tracking.

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 implicitly tells when to use the tool by explaining the value of distinguishing fresh vs. old edges. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternative tools.

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

All Numbers 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 descriptions that clearly delineate their purposes, but ask_pipeworx_beta is currently functionally identical to ask_pipeworx, and deep_research overlaps with ask_pipeworx for multi-part questions. The six polymarket_* tools also share related territory, though their boundaries are well-documented.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, and domain prefixes like polymarket_, pipeworx_, and ask_ add predictability. However, the set mixes verb-led names (compare_entities, resolve_entity, search_within) with noun-led names (entity_profile, recent_changes, bet_research), so there is no single consistent verb_noun convention.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is well above the 15-25 'heavy' band and feels like a kitchen sink: the server bundles a data-research platform, prediction-market analysis, memory, subscriptions, number conversions, and web-dev utilities into one surface. Many of these are unrelated to the server's 'Numbers' identity.

Completeness4/5

The main subdomains are thoroughly covered: data lookup (ask_pipeworx variants, deep_research, validate_claim), prediction-market analysis (arbitrage, edges, fill risk, kalshi spread), memory (remember/recall/forget), and subscriptions (subscribe/list/unsubscribe/recent_alerts). Minor gaps exist, such as no subscription update operation, but core lifecycle coverage is strong.

Resources