Skip to main content
Glama

Vat

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 indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description extends this by detailing response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), computation of trend and decay, signed values, and limitations (TTL, snapshot gaps). 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and question, followed by detailed response fields and limitations. While dense and informative, it could be slightly more concise by trimming some redundant phrasing.

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 absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return structure (tracked items with time-series, expired items with lifespan, snapshot dates) and includes important context like decay computation and snapshot TTL. Covers all necessary aspects for effective usage.

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 description adds value by specifying default values (14 for days, '1wk' for window), clamping range (2-30), and clarifying the meaning of 'window' as snapshot family. This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 as providing edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots. It answers a specific user question ('how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?') and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'polymarket_edges' by focusing on temporal depth rather than single-snapshot data.

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 understand edge persistence over time) and provides context with a concrete example differentiating fresh vs. old edges. However, it lacks an explicit statement of when NOT to use it or direct comparisons to alternatives among sibling tools.

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

All Vat 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

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to the same underlying catalog, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence also overlap, and entity_profile vs recent_changes cover similar ground. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent would frequently struggle to pick the right tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb-first (validate_vat, list_vat_formats, resolve_entity), some are noun-first (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, recent_alerts), and some are product-branded (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_feedback). It's readable but does not follow a single predictable verb_noun convention.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold for a coherent set, especially for a server named 'Vat' where only two tools (list_vat_formats, validate_vat) relate to the apparent purpose. The bulk forms a broad data-research platform that would be more appropriately split into separate VAT and Pipeworx servers.

Completeness4/5

For the actual data-research domain, coverage is strong: discovery, single lookup, grounded answers, deep multi-source research, entity resolution, comparisons, claim verification, memory, subscriptions, and prediction-market tooling are all present. The only clear gap is that the VAT-specific surface is minimal (format validation only, no registration/VIES check), but the overall functional surface is otherwise quite complete.

Resources