Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Roanoke

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses meaningful behavioral details: snapshots are written on cache-miss, gaps in snapshot_dates mean nobody scanned, history depth is bounded by a 60-day TTL, and decay numbers are based on daily closes rather than intraday data. It also explains exactly what tracked[] and expired[] represent, giving the agent a clear picture of data semantics and limitations.

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 into ARGS, RESPONSE, and LIMITS sections, with each sentence carrying substantive information. However, it could be more scannable with bullets or brevity; the core purpose could be stated more succinctly. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, but slightly dense.

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 response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and the meaning of decay/trend fields. It also addresses edge cases like expired opportunities, data gaps, and TTL limits, making it complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (e.g., days default 14 clamp 2-30, window family options). The tool description adds only minimal extra context—'snapshot family' for window and 'lookback' for days—which does not significantly go beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb phrase 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry' and clearly answers the question 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges that likely report current edges. It also adds context comparing fresh versus old edges, reinforcing its unique purpose.

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 tool explains its intended use by contrasting a fresh wide edge with a 3-week-old edge, implying it should be used to assess edge persistence before acting. It does not explicitly name an alternative like 'use polymarket_edges for current edges', so it stops short of full when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All Arcgis Roanoke 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tools span vastly different domains (AI visibility, data querying, prediction markets, GIS) with clear descriptions individually, but the set lacks a coherent focus. An agent looking for ArcGIS functionality would be distracted by many unrelated tools, causing confusion in tool selection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Most tool names use snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern. Some names are verbs (remember, forget), others are noun phrases (entity_profile, layer_info), and some include underscores inconsistently (generate_llms_txt vs. bet_research). The naming feels arbitrary.

Tool Count1/5

With 33 tools, the count is high, but the vast majority are from Pipeworx and unrelated to the server's stated purpose (Arcgis Roanoke). Only 3-4 tools actually relate to GIS. The tool count is extremely inappropriate for the server's focus.

Completeness1/5

For the implied domain of ArcGIS Roanoke, the tool surface is severely incomplete, lacking CRUD for map layers, spatial queries, or data management. Conversely, the Pipeworx subset is also incomplete on its own (e.g., missing many data sources). The overall surface fails to serve any single domain well.

Resources