Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Lubbock

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).

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes far beyond that, illuminating response semantics (tracked/expired/snapshot_dates), the meaning of trend and decay_pp_per_day (signed by trade direction), the 60-day TTL and snapshot-gap behavior, and the daily-closes vs. intraday limitation. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure.

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 organized into clear segments: core purpose, args, response fields, and limits. Each sentence adds substantive detail, and the front-loaded question makes the tool's purpose immediately graspable. Despite its length, it is efficient for the complexity it covers.

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?

With no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values: tracked/expired/snapshot_dates and their semantics. It also covers time bounds (TTL, snapshot start), data gaps, and computation nuances. For a moderately complex tool with two optional params, this is fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the defaults (days=14, window=1wk) and adds 'max 30' and 'snapshot family' phrasing, but these are already present in the schema. It does not add new meaning beyond what the schema's parameter descriptions already convey.

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, technical statement: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots' and frames the core question 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' This clearly differentiates it from raw edge tools like polymarket_edges and arbitrage tools, and it immediately explains the tool's unique value.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (whenever edge longevity or decay matters) and contrasts fresh vs. old edges to illustrate relevance. It does not explicitly name alternatives among the sibling tools, but its phrasing 'built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots' implies the raw alternative. This is strong guidance but lacks an explicit 'use X for raw edges' exclusion.

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

All Arcgis Lubbock 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap in purpose, particularly the ask_pipeworx variants (stable, beta, grounded) and deep_research, making it difficult for an agent to choose correctly. Additionally, the Arcgis-specific tools are buried under numerous general Pipeworx tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), but there are minor inconsistencies like ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence and the simpler Arcgis tool names.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the server is overloaded, especially since the majority are Pipeworx meta-tools unrelated to the Arcgis Lubbock purpose. A well-scoped ArcGIS server would have far fewer tools.

Completeness2/5

For an ArcGIS server, only three tools directly serve that purpose (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer), lacking editing, analysis, or visualization capabilities. The remaining tools address a completely different domain.

Resources