Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Dukescounty

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 annotations (read-only, idempotent, open-world), the description reveals key behaviors: history depth bounded by a 60-day snapshot TTL, snapshots written only on cache-miss so gaps mean days with no scans, and decay computed from daily closes rather than intraday. This is substantial additional context.

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 lengthy but well-structured into Args, RESPONSE, and LIMITS sections. It front-loads the core purpose and every sentence contains actionable information without redundancy. The length is justified by the complexity of the tool's output and constraints.

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 thoroughly explains the full response format: tracked[] with fields like edge_pp_net time-series, trend, decay_pp_per_day; expired[] with lifespan_days; and snapshot_dates[] with explanation of gaps. It also discloses limitations on history depth and calculation method, providing a complete picture for correct use.

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 parameter descriptions. The description restates the parameters ('days (lookback, default 14, max 30), window (snapshot family, default "1wk")') but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. It meets the baseline but does not exceed 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 clearly states it is 'edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots' and answers the specific question 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'. This explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on historical persistence rather than current edge detection.

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 strong contextual guidance: 'a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old wide edge are different trades' and 'the median lifespan is your competition clock'. This implies using the tool for time-sensitive edge analysis, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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

All Arcgis Dukescounty 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

ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, and the prediction-market cluster (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_kalshi_spread) has heavily overlapping purposes that require reading long descriptions to separate. The server name promises ArcGIS Dukes County but most tools are unrelated, making the overall selection space confusing.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are snake_case, but conventions vary: some are verb_noun (query_layer, search_datasets, list_subscriptions), some noun-ish (entity_profile, layer_info, pipeworx_trending), some bare verbs (remember, recall, forget, subscribe), and some long compounds (polymarket_edge_tracker, scan_competitor_ai_presence). Readable overall, but no strong consistent pattern.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy, and only three (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) relate to the server's apparent ArcGIS Dukes County purpose. The rest form a sprawling Pipeworx/prediction-market/memory/utility toolkit, creating a severe scope mismatch with the server's name.

Completeness2/5

For the named Dukes County GIS domain, the surface is minimal—dataset discovery, schema, and queries—with no spatial operations or editing, though read-only access may be acceptable. For the broader Pipeworx functionality it is fairly comprehensive, but that is not what the server name advertises, leaving the set incomplete relative to its apparent identity.

Resources