Skip to main content
Glama

Airtable

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

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, which the description consistently supports. The description adds significant behavioral details: data comes from daily snapshots, gaps occur when polymarket_edges doesn't run, decay is computed from daily closes, and limits like 60-day TTL. This exceeds annotation content.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose but then becomes dense with response structure details. While informative, it could be more concise by separating response format into an output schema or a separate note. Currently, it reads as one long block, reducing scannability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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 response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and their semantics. It also covers limits (history depth, decay computation). This provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and output.

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 both parameters described. The description adds some context (defaults, valid values for window) but does not provide substantial meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 for full schema coverage.

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.' It answers a specific analytical question ('how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'polymarket_edges' (likely raw data) or 'polymarket_arbitrage' (specific strategy analysis).

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 implies when to use this tool (for analyzing edge persistence and decay trends) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools. It provides context about history depth and snapshot TTL, which helps set expectations. The purpose is well-defined, but clearer exclusion criteria would improve score.

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

All Airtable 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

The Airtable tools are distinct, but the set is dominated by a large Pipeworx research family with multiple near-identical entries (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and several overlapping prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage). An agent would frequently struggle to pick the right tool among the many data-lookup and research options, especially given the server is supposedly named Airtable.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use verb_noun snake_case (airtable_create_record, list_subscriptions, resolve_entity), while others use domain-prefixed names (pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges) or bare verbs (remember, forget, recall, subscribe). There is no single predictable pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is heavy for any single server's scope, and the mismatch is worse because the server is named Airtable yet only 5 of 36 tools relate to Airtable. The rest form an unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket/memory grab-bag, suggesting poor scoping and no clear purpose for the set as a whole.

Completeness2/5

For the stated Airtable domain, the surface is incomplete: records can be created, fetched, and listed, but there is no update_record or delete_record. For the broader Pipeworx/prediction-market domain the coverage is extensive but unfocused, and given the server's name the Airtable gap is glaring.

Resources