Skip to main content
Glama

Asana

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds extensive behavioral detail: the exact response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates arrays), field semantics (trend, decay_pp_per_day, lifespan_days), and limitations (TTL, snapshot gaps, decay calculation basis). No contradictions with annotations.

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 moderately lengthy but every sentence contributes value. It is well-organized: purpose first, then detailed response layout, then limits. Could be slightly tightened but remains efficient for the 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 fully defines the return structure and field meanings. It covers input parameters, output arrays with semantics, and limitations. Given the tool's complexity (time-series analysis), the description is remarkably complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context: default days=14, max 30 (consistent with schema's clamp 2-30), window default '1wk', and explains window as 'snapshot family'. This adds useful meaning beyond the schema labels.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry' from 'daily polymarket_edges snapshots'. It answers a specific question about edge age and trend, distinguishing it from related tools like polymarket_edges that likely provide raw current edge data.

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 implicit usage guidance by contrasting a fresh edge with an old one, signaling when this tool adds value. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use cases.

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

All Asana 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 tool set mixes Asana project management tools with a large number of Pipeworx data retrieval tools. Within the Pipeworx subset, tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded have overlapping purposes, and multiple prediction market tools exist (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges). This creates ambiguity and potential for misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names lack a consistent pattern. Some use 'asana_' prefix, others use descriptive phrases (e.g., 'compare_entities', 'generate_llms_txt'), and some are single verbs (e.g., 'forget', 'remember'). Mix of different conventions leads to unpredictability.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is high for a server named 'Asana', yet only 6 tools are Asana-specific. The majority are Pipeworx tools unrelated to Asana. This overloading makes the server feel bloated and off-purpose.

Completeness2/5

For Asana functionality, the set is incomplete: missing update/delete task, project management features, etc. The Pipeworx tools are extensive but irrelevant to the server's stated purpose, leaving the Asana workflow with notable gaps.

Resources