Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Phoenix

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, disclosing the full response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), explaining how snapshots are created (cache-miss writes) and what gaps mean, and noting the 60-day TTL and daily-close basis for decay calculations. This is rich behavioral context.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is lengthy but well-structured with Args, RESPONSE, and LIMITS sections. The analogy about fresh vs. old edges is slightly tangential, but the rest of the text is dense with necessary operational details, making it mostly concise for its complexity.

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 carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: tracked, expired, and snapshot_dates semantics, trend and decay calculation, and interpretation of missing snapshots. It also covers limitations like TTL and daily vs. intraday data, making it 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 input schema already fully describes both parameters with details on defaults and clamps (100% coverage). The description adds no significant semantic value beyond restating the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool's function: edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily polymarket_edges snapshots. It answers a specific question ('how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?') and distinguishes from the sibling polymarket_edges by focusing on the time dimension.

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 explains the exact analytical question the tool answers and gives a concrete example (fresh vs. 3-week-old edge) to illustrate when persistence matters. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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

All Arcgis Phoenix 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but the ask/research family is crowded: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same underlying catalog and require careful description reading to select correctly. Prediction-market tools also overlap in scope, though each has a reasonably distinct angle.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and mostly readable, but conventions are mixed: some are verb_noun (query_layer, resolve_entity), some are noun_noun (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage), and some are adjective_noun or brand-prefixed phrases. No consistent verb/noun ordering pattern exists across the set.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is too many for the apparent focus, especially since the server is named 'Arcgis Phoenix' but only 3 of the tools are actually GIS tools. The bulk is a sprawling Pipeworx data/prediction-market ecosystem plus unrelated utilities, making the set feel over-stuffed and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx data side is fairly complete for lookups, entity profiles, comparisons, validation, and subscriptions, but the ArcGIS Phoenix portion is only search/schema/query and lacks any analysis, geocoding, or editing capability. The presence of generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency highlights that the overall domain is undefined and therefore hard to call complete.

Resources