Skip to main content
Glama

Obis

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
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds detailed behavioral context: data sources, response structure (tracked/expired/snapshot_dates), constraints (60-day TTL, snapshot gaps), and decay computation specifics. No contradiction.

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 clear sections (purpose, args, response) and front-loaded with the main question. Every sentence adds value, though some analogies (e.g., 'the latter is wide for a reason') are insightful but slightly verbose.

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 the tool's complexity (time-series, multiple response parts, constraints) and lack of output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values, computed fields, limitations, and edge cases. No gaps.

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 coverage is 100% and the description repeats parameter info (days, window) with defaults and constraints, adding little beyond the schema. However, it clarifies 'snapshot family' context, which is marginal. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('answers'), identifies the resource ('edge persistence and decay telemetry'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on time-series analysis of edges, contrasting with tools like 'polymarket_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 implicitly guides usage by stating it answers 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' and contrasts fresh vs. stale edges. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to alternatives.

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

All Obis 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

Several tool clusters have unclear boundaries, most notably ask_pipeworx / ask_pipeworx_beta (which currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly) / ask_pipeworx_grounded, as well as bet_research and the five polymarket_* tools which all surface betting opportunities. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap, and entity_profile/compare_entities/resolve_entity share inputs. Extensive descriptions help differentiate, but an agent could easily misselect between near-duplicate entry points.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are uniformly snake_case and mostly follow verb_noun or prefix-group patterns such as ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, remember/recall/forget, and subscribe/unsubscribe. Minor deviations like entity_profile and recent_changes drop the verb, but the overall convention is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is beyond the 25+ threshold and the server bundles many unrelated domains—Pipeworx data research, Polymarket analysis, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, npm scanning, and OBIS marine data. Many tools are redundant variants (six Polymarket tools, four ask_pipeworx variants) that inflate the surface area without adding distinct capabilities.

Completeness3/5

The data-query and prediction-market domains are thoroughly covered: routing, grounded answers, deep research, claim validation, entity comparison, edge detection, fill risk, and subscriptions. However, the server's namesake OBIS surface is skeletal—only occurrence samples, taxon resolution, and aggregate statistics, with no full-record access or dataset browsing—and the broad research purpose leaves notable raw-dataset access hidden behind the meta-router.

Resources