Skip to main content
Glama

Barcelona Events

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: data source (daily snapshots), history bounds (60-day TTL), decay calculation method, and response structure details.

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 detailed but well-structured: starts with core purpose, then explains args, then response fields, then limits. Every sentence adds value; though long, it is necessary given no output schema.

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 tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the three response sections (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and their fields, along with limits and data source nuances. It is complete for an agent to understand invocation and output.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions, but the description adds defaults and constraints clarifications (e.g., days default 14 max 30, window default '1wk') and explains the meaning of the output structure, going beyond schema alone.

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 built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots' and answers a specific question. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'polymarket_edges' by being a derived analysis tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for tracking edge persistence but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'polymarket_edges' or 'polymarket_arbitrage'. No 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 Barcelona Events 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer factual queries with subtle differences, and the Polymarket suite (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker) has fine-grained distinctions that are hard to separate. The single Barcelona events tool is isolated and unrelated to the rest, adding to agent confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tool names use snake_case and many follow a verb_noun pattern, but there are notable inconsistencies: noun-first names (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage, pipeworx_trending) and modifiers like beta/grounded on ask_pipeworx introduce non-uniformity. Overall the set is readable but not consistently predictable.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools, the set is beyond the well-scoped 3-15 range. The count is especially inappropriate for a server named 'Barcelona Events' because only one tool actually relates to Barcelona events; the other 31 are a broad data-research and utility collection with no clear connection to the server's apparent purpose.

Completeness1/5

For a server named 'Barcelona Events', the surface is severely incomplete: it offers a single events search tool with no create, update, delete, detail, venue, or organizer operations. Even interpreting the domain broadly, the mismatch between the server name and the tool set leaves a critical gap between user expectation and actual capability.

Resources