Skip to main content
Glama

Temperature Random

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description details the response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), field definitions (trend, decay_pp_per_day), and behavior (decay from daily closes, not intraday). No contradiction 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 well-structured: a one-line summary, then detailed response breakdown, then limits. It is somewhat verbose but each part adds necessary context, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 the two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the response in detail (three arrays with field explanations), notes snapshot gaps, and explains limitations like 60-day TTL. Nearly all needed information is present.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the clamping of 'days' (2-30) and the meaning of 'window' as a family of snapshots. It also repeats defaults, slightly redundant but helpful.

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 answers a specific question about edge age and trend, distinguishing it from related tools like polymarket_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?

The description gives clear context on when to use the tool (to assess edge persistence vs. freshness) and explains limitations like snapshot gaps and TTL, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives.

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

All Temperature Random 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There are several overlapping clusters: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions through the same 5,743-tool catalog, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently an exact duplicate of ask_pipeworx. The Polymarket opportunity tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, bet_research) also have fuzzy boundaries despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency2/5

There is no consistent naming pattern across the set: some tools are verb-first (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, validate_claim), some are noun-first (entity_profile, recent_changes, polymarket_edges), and some are compound/multi-word oddities (temperature_random_generate, ai_visibility_check). Small internal clusters like remember/recall/forget and subscribe/unsubscribe/list_subscriptions show mini-consistency, but the overall convention is mixed and unpredictable.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools, the server is over-stuffed, and many of them serve the same broad Pipeworx data/research purpose while one unrelated temperature tool rides along. The count is above the 25-tool threshold where a set starts to feel unwieldy, and several tools could be merged or dropped without losing real capability.

Completeness4/5

Assuming the intended scope is the Pipeworx data/agent platform implied by 31 of the 32 tools, coverage is strong: lookups, grounded verification, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, entity resolution, claim validation, tool discovery, memory, subscription lifecycle, prediction-market analysis, execution risk, and feedback are all represented. The temperature_random_generate tool is a domain misfit rather than a completeness gap, and there are few obvious missing operations for the stated workflows.

Resources