Skip to main content
Glama

Permid

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by detailing the time-series analysis, trend classification (new, widening, stable, decaying), decay computation, expired opportunities, snapshot dates, and limitations (60-day TTL, daily closes). No contradictions with annotations (readOnly, idempotent).

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 more structured (e.g., bullet points for response fields). It is front-loaded with purpose and key points, and all sentences are informative. Slightly verbose but 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), their meanings, and constraints (TTL, snapshot gaps). It covers all necessary context for correct use, making it highly 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds default values and clamping (days max 30 vs schema clamp 2-30) but does not provide substantial additional meaning beyond the schema. Minor discrepancy in max value does not significantly affect understanding.

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: providing edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots. It uses a specific verb ('answers') and resource ('edge persistence'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'polymarket_edges' by focusing on historical trends rather than current 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 understanding edge history and decay, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'polymarket_edges' or other sibling tools. No explicit 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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

All Permid 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but the set includes three very similar `ask_pipeworx` variants that could cause confusion despite detailed descriptions. The Polymarket and memory tools are well-differentiated.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names follow a mix of patterns: some `verb_noun` (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), some `noun_noun` (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage), and some standalone nouns (forget, recall). While readable, the inconsistency is notable.

Tool Count3/5

At 33 tools, the server is on the heavy side for typical MCP servers (3-15 ideal). However, the broad scope covering many data domains partially justifies the count.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of data access and analysis needs, including entity resolution, company profiles, betting analysis, subscriptions, and memory. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool for editing entities), but overall it's well-rounded.

Resources