Skip to main content
Glama

Rba

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations. It discloses the 60-day snapshot TTL, cache-miss data gaps, daily-close-based decay computations (not intraday), and explains the response structure in detail. This is the kind of behavioral context an agent needs to correctly interpret results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but tightly packed with essential information, organized into purpose, Args, RESPONSE, and LIMITS sections. Every sentence adds value, and the front-loaded purpose statement makes it immediately scannable. For a complex telemetry tool with no output schema, this length is fully justified.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by fully specifying the response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]), including field-level details like trend values and decay computation. It also covers operational limitations (TTL, gaps). This is complete for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool effectively.

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%, and the description repeats the same parameter semantics (defaults, clamps, window family) without adding meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The description adds no new parameter-specific context, so the 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots.' It clearly answers a concrete question ('how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?') and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'polymarket_edges' by focusing on temporal tracking rather than current edge values.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool by contrasting fresh vs. old wide edges, implying use for persistence/decay analysis. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, relying on implication rather than direct comparison with sibling tools.

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

All Rba 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve as entry points for data questions, and ask_pipeworx_beta currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx. Entity-focused tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, ai_visibility_check, scan_competitor_ai_presence) also blur together even with lengthy descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools use lowercase snake_case, which is consistent and readable. There is some variation between verb-first names (discover_tools, resolve_entity) and noun-first names (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage), plus the ask_pipeworx variant family, but the pattern is predictable overall.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is heavy, and the scope sprawls far beyond the 'Rba' server name: only 4 tools relate to the Reserve Bank of Australia, while the rest cover a universal data router, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, npm scanning, and more. Several meta-tools (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions) duplicate the discovery/routing role, making the count feel inflated.

Completeness3/5

For the RBA-specific subdomain, coverage is solid: directory lookup, series fetching, cash rate, and exchange rates. For the broader data-research domain most tools imply, coverage is quite comprehensive (routing, grounded answers, entity resolution, fact-checking, monitoring, memory), but the server's stated identity is unclear, and the beta duplicate tool adds noise rather than filling a real gap.

Resources