Skip to main content
Glama

art

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Polymarket Edges

polymarket_edges
Read-onlyIdempotent

Scan top Polymarket markets and return opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price. Built for "what should I bet on today" — agents discover opportunities without paging hundreds of markets. FIVE MODEL FAMILIES grouped into three response segments under by_segment: (1) MODEL_DRIVEN — crypto_price (lognormal barrier from 90d FRED log-returns) and news_momentum (GDELT 7d/21d article-volume ratio, soft signal w/ halved Kelly). (2) STRUCTURAL_ARBITRAGE — partition_overround on mutually-exclusive events; per-leg favorite-longshot bias correction with per-sport α (tennis 1.02, soccer 1.10, MMA 1.15, default 1.0); placeholder-slug filter drops will-person-X / will-team-Y / will-manager-Z / will-someone-else- backstops; partitions with >20% placeholder fraction skipped entirely. (3) CONCENTRATED_LONGSHOT — basket trade when one leg ≥75% AND ≥2 longshots ≤8% AND portfolio return ≥25:1; rare-by-design (gates relaxed Run 8 from prior 85%/5%/50:1). EVERY OPPORTUNITY carries edge_pp_net (after slippage), kelly_fraction + kelly_fraction_half (capped at 0.25), market.liquidity, market.spread_pp, market.volume, plus a 24h-move warning ("Market moved X.Xpp in 24h") when the recent move alone exceeds the edge — your edge may already be in the price. TRADEABLE-EDGE KNOBS: min_liquidity / max_spread_pp drop opportunities where edge isn't realizable; min_partition_leg_kelly filters partitions by best per-leg Kelly. RESPONSE TOP-LEVEL: by_segment{model_driven,structural_arbitrage,concentrated_longshot}, fed_candidates/fed_note (Fed bets surface here, excluded from ranking — 1m-T vs EFFR signal is unreliable at meeting-month horizons without paid OIS/SOFR-futures data), and _diagnostics{concentrated_longshot:{...funnel counters},category_counts,filter_skips} so callers can see WHY a segment is empty (top-N stale, all candidates failed gates, knob dropped them). Cached 1h at the KV level keyed on all knobs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoTop N edges to return after ranking. Default 10, max 25.
windowNoPolymarket volume window to filter markets. Default 1wk.
min_kellyNoMinimum half-Kelly fraction (as decimal, e.g. 0.005 = 0.5% of bankroll) to include single-leg opportunities. Default 0 (no filter). Skips opportunities that are too small to bet sensibly even if the edge is large.
min_edge_ppNoMinimum |edge| in percentage points to include (default 0.5). Edge is evaluated NET of slippage.
slippage_ppNoAssumed execution slippage in percentage points per leg (default 0.3). Subtracted from raw |edge| before ranking and Kelly sizing. Polymarket has zero trading fees as of 2024 but bid/ask + thin depth typically eats 20-50bp per trade. Bump for very thin partitions; drop to 0 if you have a smarter fill model.
max_spread_ppNoTradeable-edge filter. Maximum bid/ask spread in percentage points on the representative market. Default null (no filter). Set to 2 to require tight books — anything wider eats most plausible edges.
min_liquidityNoTradeable-edge filter. Minimum $ liquidity on the representative market (or for partition_overround, on at least one top_leg). Default 0 (no filter). Set to 5000 to drop thin-book opportunities where executing the edge would walk the book past breakeven.
category_filterNoComma-separated list to restrict the output: "model_driven" (crypto_price + news_momentum), "structural_arbitrage" (partition_overround), "concentrated_longshot". Combine like "model_driven,structural_arbitrage". Default: all.
min_partition_leg_kellyNoMinimum BEST per-leg half-Kelly fraction across a partition_overround opportunity's top_legs (or longshot_basket legs). Default 0 (no filter). Partition arbs always return kelly_fraction_half=0 at the parent level by design (basket trades don't compose to single-leg Kelly), so min_kelly never filters them — this knob applies to the per-leg Kelly inside top_legs instead. Use to suppress thin partitions whose individual leg edges aren't worth the per-leg slippage cost.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description discloses important behavioral details: edges are 'NET of slippage,' Kelly is 'capped at 0.25,' there's a '24h-move warning' that flags when recent price movement exceeds the edge, and segment-specific behavior like 'placeholder-slug filter' and 'rare-by-design' for concentrated longshots. It also reveals caching behavior ('Cached 1h at the KV level keyed on all knobs') and explains why diagnostics are included ('so callers can see WHY a segment is empty'). This is exemplary transparency.

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-organized, using section headers (MODEL_DRIVEN, STRUCTURAL_ARBITRAGE, CONCENTRATED_LONGSHOT, TRADEABLE-EDGE KNOBS, RESPONSE TOP-LEVEL, _diagnostics) to make the dense content scannable. It front-loads the primary purpose and then elaborates, with minimal fluff. The length is justified by the complexity of the tool, but a few sentences could be tightened, preventing a 5.

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?

For a complex tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and multiple model families, the description covers all essential aspects: response structure (by_segment, fed_candidates, _diagnostics), model-specific logic (lognormal barrier, GDELT ratio, per-sport α), tradeability filters, caching, and exclusions. It even explains the rationale for excluding Fed signals. This is a near-complete picture for an agent to know when and how to invoke the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the interaction between knobs (e.g., 'min_liquidity / max_spread_pp drop opportunities where edge isn't realizable') and clarifying the subtle relationship between min_kelly and min_partition_leg_kelly ('Partition arbs always return kelly_fraction_half=0 at the parent level by design...'). These insights go beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 'Scan top Polymarket markets and return opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price,' which clearly identifies the tool's function (scan and return) and its unique value (Pipeworx data disagreement). It names the resource (Polymarket markets) and explains the intended use case ('what should I bet on today'), distinctly differentiating it from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage. Explicit mention of the 'FIVE MODEL FAMILIES' further specifies the output scope.

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 states the tool is 'Built for "what should I bet on today"' and explains how it saves agents from 'paging hundreds of markets.' It provides explicit knob guidance ('min_liquidity / max_spread_pp drop opportunities where edge isn't realizable') and exclusion criteria ('Fed bets surface here, excluded from ranking'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_edge_tracker, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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

All art 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Tools are a mix of art-related and Pipeworx data tools, with no clear boundary. Many Pipeworx tools overlap in functionality (e.g., ask_pipeworx, deep_research, bet_research), causing confusion. Art tools are distinct but sparse.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mostly use snake_case but follow inconsistent patterns: some are verb-based (ask_pipeworx, search_artworks), others are noun-based (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback). There is no unified convention across the server.

Tool Count1/5

33 tools is excessive for an art-focused server; only 4 tools (search_artworks, get_artwork, get_departments, generate_llms_txt) relate to art. The rest are from a different domain (Pipeworx), creating a severe scope mismatch.

Completeness2/5

For the art domain, only basic search and retrieval are provided; missing browsing, filtering, or creation tools. The Pipeworx tools are comprehensive but irrelevant to the server's stated purpose, leaving the art surface incomplete.

Resources