Skip to main content
Glama

advice

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing data availability nuances: snapshots are only written on cache-miss, so gaps mean no scan happened; history is bounded by a 60-day TTL; decay is computed from daily closes (not intraday). These are non-obvious behavioral traits that affect interpretation. The annotations indicate read-only and non-destructive, which the description fully supports, with 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is substantial but every sentence earns its place: it starts with purpose, explains parameters inline, details the response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), and ends with limitations. It is front-loaded with the core question and logically organized, with no filler or repetition.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating the response fields (`tracked[]`, `expired[]`, `snapshot_dates[]`) and their meanings. It also covers data history limits, gap behavior, and calculation basis. For a telemetry tool with moderate complexity, this is complete and self-sufficient.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters with descriptions and defaults, and the description mostly restates them (e.g., 'days (lookback, default 14, max 30)' mirrors the schema's 'Lookback in days (default 14, clamp 2-30)'). It adds a little context by calling window a 'snapshot family,' but this is marginal. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3 and the description does not significantly raise it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots.' It clearly distinguishes itself from related tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' This makes the purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from sibling tools that likely return current edges or arbitrage opportunities.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to answer whether an edge is persistent or decaying, and to compare fresh versus old edges. It even gives a practical framing: 'the median lifespan is your competition clock.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All advice 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

The ask_pipeworx family is a major confusion source: ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly states it 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly', and ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research heavily overlap with the base router. polymarket_edges vs polymarket_arbitrage and discover_tools vs suggest_questions also have fuzzy boundaries, though long descriptions partially mitigate the overlap.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names are lowercase snake_case, and most follow a verb_noun pattern (validate_claim, resolve_entity, compare_entities, generate_llms_txt). A few bare verbs (remember, recall, forget) and noun-style names (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage, pipeworx_trending) deviate slightly, but the overall style is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy and spans several unrelated domains: Pipeworx data research, prediction markets, subscriptions, memory, AI visibility, advice slips, npm dependency checks, and llms.txt generation. The count is inflated by near-duplicate research routers and disconnected outliers like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency, making the set feel like a kitchen sink rather than a focused server.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx research and prediction-market surfaces are quite complete (ask, grounded, deep research, entity profile, compare, resolve, validate, subscriptions with full lifecycle, memory with save/recall/delete). However, the server is named 'advice' yet the advice domain only has three thin tools (get/search/random) with no other operations, and the mixed domains leave obvious dead ends for any single stated purpose.

Resources