Skip to main content
Glama

Owasp

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnly and idempotent, and the description adds significant behavioral context: history bounded by 60-day TTL, decay from daily closes not intraday, and snapshot gaps meaning no scan. 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 verbose but well-structured with RESPONSE sections. Every sentence adds value, though some could be trimmed (e.g., parenthetical asides). Front-loads the core purpose effectively.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the three response arrays (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) with field details and semantics. Also covers edge cases like snapshot gaps and TTL limits, making the tool usage self-contained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema already describes both parameters (days, window) with types and descriptions. The description adds defaults (14, '1wk') and clamps (days 2-30, window options). This goes beyond the schema, providing essential operational details.

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 specific verb 'edge persistence and decay telemetry' and resource 'daily polymarket_edges snapshots'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on the time-series aspect (how long an edge has existed).

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 explains when to use this tool (to check edge age and decay), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like polymarket_edges for single-snapshot analysis. The context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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

All Owasp 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools overlap in purpose, especially the Pipeworx data query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and the Polymarket betting tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, etc.). Descriptions help differentiate, but an agent may still struggle to choose the correct one.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tool names use snake_case and follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, validate_claim). Some deviations exist (e.g., entity_profile, cheat_sheet) but overall the pattern is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a server named 'Owasp', as only 4 are directly OWASP-related (asvs_chapters, asvs_requirements, cheat_sheet, top10). The remaining 30 tools are for general data querying and betting, making the surface feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

The OWASP domain is partially covered with ASVS requirements, cheat sheets, and Top 10 lists. However, notable gaps exist, such as the OWASP Testing Guide, Software Assurance Maturity Model (SAMM), or risk assessment tools. The Pipeworx tools are comprehensive but not relevant to OWASP.

Resources