Skip to main content
Glama

Open Notify

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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details: data source (daily snapshots), limits (60-day TTL, daily closes not intraday), and the meaning of decay numbers, exceeding annotation scope.

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 long but structured with main purpose, args, and response format. Each part adds necessary detail without excessive verbosity. Front-loaded with key insight about edge aging.

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, yet the description fully explains the response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and covers limitations. For a tool with two parameters, this is exceptionally complete.

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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds defaults and constraints (days lookback max 30, window default 1wk), but this mostly duplicates schema info. No new semantic value beyond what schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it provides edge persistence and decay telemetry, answering specific questions about edge duration and trend. It is unambiguous about the tool's function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 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 Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for historical edge analysis but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No direct comparison to sibling tools or conditions for using this vs. polymarket_edges is provided.

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

All Open Notify 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The three ask_pipeworx variants are near-identical (the beta is currently an exact copy of the stable router), and ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route natural-language questions to the same underlying source catalog. The six polymarket_* tools also heavily overlap in opportunity detection, though some clusters like memory and subscriptions are clearly separated.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming is mostly snake_case but mixes conventions: verb_noun (list_subscriptions, resolve_entity), noun-first (entity_profile, bet_research), metadata-style prefixes (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges), and bare verbs (remember, recall, forget). It is readable but does not follow one predictable pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is excessive for a server nominally named Open Notify, and the count is inflated by redundant ask_pipeworx variants and six closely-related Polymarket tools. The broad data-gateway scope could justify a large catalog, but the set feels bloated and unfocused rather than deliberately scaled.

Completeness2/5

For the apparent Open Notify domain, only astros and iss_now fit, and core ISS functionality like pass predictions is missing. The wider data-lookup surface is extensive, but the inclusion of unrelated memory, subscription, npm-scanning, and llms.txt tools means no single domain gets coherent lifecycle coverage.

Resources