Skip to main content
Glama

translate

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?

Annotations already mark it read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral context: snapshot TTL (60 days), cache-miss-driven gaps, daily-close calculation for decay, sign convention for edge_pp_net, and response structure. 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 front-loaded with the core question, then organizes args, response fields, and limits. It is dense and well-structured, though the rhetorical example ('wide for a reason nobody is willing to take') and some extra prose add length without carrying essential information.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains return values (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]), their semantics, and important caveats like TTL limits and data gaps. This is complete for a 2-parameter read-only tool.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description restates defaults ('default 14, max 30', 'default 1wk') and adds the phrase 'snapshot family' but does not meaningfully extend what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots' and states the exact question it answers ('how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'). This distinguishes it from sibling polymarket_edges (the snapshot source) and other market tools.

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?

Usage context is clear: use it to assess edge longevity and decay, with a concrete example comparing a fresh wide edge to a 3-week-old one. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it misses the 'explicit when-not/alternatives' bar.

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

All translate 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 groups of tools are hard to tell apart in practice: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and bet_research all route natural-language questions to similar data sources, and the polymarket_* family plus bet_research heavily overlaps. Individual descriptions are detailed, but an agent navigating this surface will frequently struggle to choose the correct entry point.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming is readable and mostly snake_case, but conventions are mixed: some tools are verb+noun commands (resolve_entity, validate_claim), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, bet_research), and others use product prefixes inconsistently (ask_pipeworx vs pipeworx_feedback vs polymarket_edges). The polymarket_* cluster is consistent, but no clear pattern holds across the whole server.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is past the 25-tool threshold and is especially excessive for a server named 'translate', where only three tools relate to translation. Most of the surface belongs to a broad Pipeworx data/analytics/prediction-market platform that would be better split into separate focused servers.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx-related workflows are fairly well-covered: lookup, grounded research, company profiling, prediction-market analysis, subscriptions, and memory all have usable tool clusters. However, the translation domain implied by the server name is thin and references a deepl_translate tool that is not actually exposed, so there is no single domain that feels fully complete.

Resources