Skip to main content
Glama

Trade Intel

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond annotations, detailing response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]), computation of decay metrics, and limitations (60-day TTL, daily close data). Annotations already indicate safe read-only behavior, but the description adds rich behavioral context without contradiction.

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 dense and informative, front-loading the purpose and then systematically detailing the response. While it is somewhat lengthy (150+ words), every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear.

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 lack of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains all return fields, metrics, and limitations. Parameters are fully covered, and the tool's complexity is adequately addressed, making the description complete for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor clarifications (defaults and clamp values) that align with the schema but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 provides 'edge persistence and decay telemetry' and answers a specific question about how long an edge has existed and whether it's shrinking. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on time-series analysis.

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 (to assess edge history and decay) and implies when not to use it by highlighting the difference between fresh and old edges. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools or provide direct 'when not to use' guidance, though the sibling context offers some differentiation.

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

All Trade Intel 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

A número of tools form near- overlapping clusters: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_ipeworx_grounded, and deeep_research all answer questions, while bet_research, polmarget_edges, and polmarget_arbitrage all scan for betting opportunities. The two ask_ipeworx variants are currently identical, and discover_tools vs sgget_questions serve the same discovery role. Long descriptions help but do not remove the misselection risk among 34 overlapping tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools use clear snake_case verb_noun names (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity, subscribe, validate_claim) with helpful domain prefixes like polmarget_* and trade_*. A few standalones like forget/recall/remembber and recent_alerts break the pattern slightly, but the style is largely predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools this exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels overloaded. The surface could be consolidated: four ask_ipeworx variants, five polmarget-specific tools, three memory tools, and three company-profile-style tools carry significant redundancy. Inclusions like generate_lms_txt and scan_dependency also broaden the scope well beyond the Trade Intel mandate.

Completeness4/5

For its broad data-intelligence domain the surface is quite complete: data lookup, grounded fact-checking, entity profiles and comparison, recent changes, prediction-market research with fill-risk verification, trade statistics, memory, and subscription lifecycle all exist with no dead ends. Minor gaps remain (e.g. no dedicated trade time-series other than the US macro dashboard, and no direct tool-listing aside from discover_tools), but agents can work around them.

Resources