Skip to main content
Glama

Nws

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: snapshot-based, 60-day TTL, daily closes, and explains 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?

Description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then details args and response format. Some parts are verbose (e.g., explanation of negative sign), but overall structure is logical and efficient for the complexity.

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, but the description fully explains the return fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and their semantics. Also covers limitations (60-day TTL, daily closes). Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description is complete and self-sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description adds extra context: default values (days=14, window='1wk'), range (days 2-30), and examples. It clarifies how parameters affect the output, providing more meaning than the schema alone.

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?

Description clearly states the tool provides edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily polymarket_edges snapshots, answering how long an edge has existed and if it is shrinking. The verb and resource are specific, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like polymarket_edges (likely just 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?

Description provides context for when to use the tool, e.g., comparing a fresh wide edge versus a 3-week-old wide edge, implying use cases for assessing decay. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools but gives enough context to infer appropriate usage.

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

All Nws 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., multiple Polymarket analysis tools, several query tools (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, compare_entities, entity_profile) with unclear boundaries. Agents may struggle to choose the correct tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

While most names use snake_case, there is no consistent prefix pattern across subdomains (e.g., 'ask_', 'get_', 'polymarket_', 'pipeworx_'). Some names like 'bet_research' and 'deep_research' follow different conventions within the same domain.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a server named 'Nws' that primarily suggests weather. The set covers many unrelated domains (prediction markets, npm scanning, memory), making the scope unfocused and overloaded.

Completeness3/5

The server has decent coverage for prediction markets and company financials, but weather tools are limited to basic forecasts/alerts, lacking radar, climate, or historical data. Other domains like npm scanning seem tacked on.

Resources