Skip to main content
Glama

Webflow

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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds substantial behavioral context: it's read-only, provides time-series data, trend classification, decay rate, and explains response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates). There is no 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses formatting for readability. It is thorough but slightly verbose; some details like response format could be in an output schema if one existed, but given its absence, the detail is justified.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains return values (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) with field details and limits (TTL, gaps). Parameter schema is already complete. The description provides all necessary context for the 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% with clear descriptions (e.g., 'Lookback in days (default 14, clamp 2-30)'). The description repeats some of this and adds minor context (e.g., 'snapshot family'), but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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 it provides edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots, answering specific questions like 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly contrasting with a fresh vs old wide edge scenario.

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) and mentions limits like 60-day TTL and snapshot gaps. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or directly compare to alternatives like polymarket_edges, though the context of 'different trades' implies a use case.

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

All Webflow 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have blurry boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, polymarket_edges/polymarket_arbitrage/polymarket_edge_tracker/polymarket_fill_risk all target overlapping prediction-market signals, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence plus entity_profile vs recent_changes vs compare_entities partially duplicate each other. The Webflow tools are distinct, but the dominant Pipeworx cluster is hard to navigate.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes multiple conventions: clean verb_noun for Webflow tools (list_sites, get_collection_item), an ask_pipeworx family, plain single verbs (remember, recall, forget), and long noun-cluster names for prediction markets (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker). There is no single predictable pattern across the set.

Tool Count1/5

36 tools is excessive for a server named 'Webflow' — only about six tools actually concern the Webflow CMS (list_sites, get_site, list_collections, list_collection_items, get_collection_item, generate_llms_txt). The remaining ~30 tools form a completely different data-research/prediction-market/memory suite, making the server wildly over-scoped and mislabeled.

Completeness2/5

For the Webflow domain, the surface is read-only: sites and collections can be listed and items fetched, but there are no create, update, delete, or publish operations, leaving obvious lifecycle gaps. The extensive non-Webflow tools do not address the stated server purpose, so the mismatch hurts completeness rather than fixing it.

Resources