Skip to main content
Glama

Url

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond these annotations: it explains data sources (daily snapshots), temporal bounds (60-day snapshot TTL, from snapshotting enablement), calculation details (decay from daily closes, not intraday), and response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates). 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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then covers response details and limitations. Every sentence contributes useful information. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for response fields), but it remains concise and readable.

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 thoroughly explains the response fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and their meanings. It also covers limitations (TTL, decay computation). For a read-only tool with two optional parameters and clear annotations, the description is complete enough for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters ('days' and 'window'). The description adds value by restating defaults (14 days, '1wk'), clarifying the 'days' clamp range (2-30), and explaining what 'window' means ('which polymarket_edges window family to read snapshots for'). This enriches the schema definitions without duplication.

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: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots' and answers the specific question 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'. It uses a specific verb-noun pair ('track edge persistence and decay') and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'polymarket_edges' by focusing on historical tracking rather than current snapshots.

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 explicitly explains when to use the tool: when you need to know if an edge is fresh or decaying, illustrated with a trade example. It notes that a fresh wide edge differs from a 3-week-old wide edge. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the context makes the usage clear. Sibling 'polymarket_edges' is implied as the source of snapshots but not directly contrasted.

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

All Url 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, well-scoped purposes, but several question-answering/research tools sit close together: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim can all be selected for factual questions. The descriptions are detailed enough to reduce ambiguity, but ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, and discovery helpers like discover_tools, suggest_questions, and pipeworx_trending also overlap somewhat.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are uniformly snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern such as build_url, list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, and validate_claim. The polymarket_* and pipeworx_* prefixes form a readable convention, though a few names like pipeworx_feedback and polymarket_arbitrage are noun-phrases rather than verb-first actions.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well past the 25+ threshold where even a broad platform starts to feel bloated. The set mixes data research, prediction-market tooling, URL utilities, memory, subscriptions, feedback, and npm scanning, which would be more coherently split across focused servers.

Completeness3/5

The core research workflows are thoroughly covered: routing, grounded answers, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, claim validation, discovery, alerts, and memory all exist. However, the URL utility and dependency-scanning side domains feel tacked on and incomplete, and there is no dedicated tool to fetch an arbitrary pipeworx:// citation record even though such URIs are returned throughout.

Resources