Skip to main content
Glama

Scryfall

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare safe read-only behavior. Description adds rich behavioral details: response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), time-series handling, decay computation, and limits (60-day TTL, gaps). No contradictions.

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?

Information-dense but slightly verbose. Well-structured with sections (args, response, limits). Some repetition could be trimmed.

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, but description fully explains return format (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and covers limits and edge cases. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%; description adds default values, clamp range for 'days', and explicit options for 'window' (24hr, 1wk, 1mo), providing meaning beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states it provides 'edge persistence and decay telemetry' from daily snapshots. Distinguishes itself from sibling 'polymarket_edges' by focusing on historical persistence 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly answers when to use: 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' Implies not for current edges (use polymarket_edges). Could name alternatives more directly.

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

All Scryfall 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

Most tools have distinct purposes, but the ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) plus deep_research creates real boundary confusion, and the six polymarket_* tools overlap enough to require careful reading. The few Scryfall card tools are clearly distinct from the Pipeworx bulk, but the name mismatch adds selection friction.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case and most follow a verb_noun pattern (get_card, search_cards, resolve_entity, validate_claim). There are deviations like entity_profile, deep_research, and pipeworx_trending, but the nested families (ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*) are internally consistent and predictable.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is above the 25+ threshold and is especially mismatched with the server name 'Scryfall', which implies a focused MTG card server. Only 4 of 35 tools relate to Scryfall; the remaining 31 form a sprawling data-research platform that would be more appropriately split into separate servers.

Completeness4/5

The dominant Pipeworx data-research surface is remarkably complete: universal lookup, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, entity resolution, claim validation, change feeds, subscriptions, memory, and discovery. The Scryfall subset covers core card lookup (search, get by name, random, list sets) but lacks rulings, set details, and card-by-ID lookups, which is a minor gap relative to the server's stated name.

Resources