Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Abbotsford

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral details: the 60-day snapshot TTL, that snapshots are written on cache-miss, that gaps in snapshot_dates mean no scan occurred, and that decay numbers are computed from daily closes rather than intraday. This adds significant value beyond the annotations.

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 longer than typical examples, but it is well-structured with explicit Args, RESPONSE, and LIMITS sections. Every sentence provides necessary detail, especially since there is no output schema to explain the return structure. It is front-loaded with purpose and remains highly informative without redundancy.

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 lack of an output schema, the description comprehensively explains the response fields (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]), their meanings, and caveats like lifespan_days as a 'competition clock' and the limitation of history depth. It covers edge cases and limitations thoroughly, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 days and window already described in the input schema. The description repeats defaults and clamps but adds little new semantic meaning. The 'window' description in the schema already mentions 'snapshot family', and the description's additional context about defaults is redundant.

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 distinguishes from siblings by focusing on historical persistence ('how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'), which is not covered by tools like polymarket_edges that likely list current edges.

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 a clear use case ('a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old wide edge are different trades') and explains when the tool is valuable. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to infer when to use it versus other edge-related tools.

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

All Arcgis Abbotsford 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and discover_tools all provide data lookup/research. The PolyMarket family (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also creates boundary confusion despite varied signals.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case, but the naming pattern is mixed: some are imperative verb phrases (query_layer, validate_claim), while others are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, layer_info). Descriptions are readable overall, but there is no consistent verb_noun convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is high and the vast majority are unrelated to the server's stated ArcGIS Abbotsford purpose. The set appears to be a generic Pipeworx data/prediction-market toolkit with only a few GIS-specific tools, making the count excessive for the declared scope.

Completeness2/5

For the ArcGIS Abbotsford domain, the surface is severely incomplete: only search_datasets, query_layer, and layer_info cover GIS functionality, lacking update/delete/create operations or broader dataset management. For the actual Pipeworx domain, coverage is decent, but that does not match the server name.

Resources