Skip to main content
Glama

Soilgrids

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 indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds detailed behavioral information: response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), trend computation, decay calculation, and TTL limits. 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 thorough but slightly verbose. It is well-structured with clear separation of response fields and limits, and front-loads the key question. A bit more conciseness could improve score.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]), limitations (60-day TTL, snapshot start), and decay computation. It provides a complete picture for a telemetry tool.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by providing defaults (days=14, window='1wk'), constraints (max 30 days), and contextual meaning (lookback, snapshot family).

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 polymarket_edges snapshots. It answers the specific question about edge lifespan and distinguishes itself from siblings like polymarket_edges and polymarket_arbitrage.

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 the tool (e.g., to distinguish a fresh wide edge from an old wide edge) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The context is clear, but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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

All Soilgrids 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve similar question-answering roles. The soil-specific tools are distinct but mixed with many general tools, causing confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools use snake_case (ask_pipeworx, list_soil_properties), others are compound nouns (suggest_questions, deep_research), and there is no uniform pattern like verb_noun across the set.

Tool Count3/5

With 34 tools, the count is high but might be justified for a broad platform. However, the server name 'Soilgrids' suggests a focused soil data service, making the count feel excessive and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

For soil data, the three dedicated tools (list_soil_properties, soil_classification, soil_properties) cover basic needs but lack advanced queries. The general tools are extensive but introduce many gaps unrelated to soil, so overall completeness for the server's stated purpose is mediocre.

Resources