Skip to main content
Glama

Bcb Br

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).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare read-only/idempotent, and the description adds significant behavioral context: snapshots are written on cache-miss (gaps mean no scan), history bounded by 60-day TTL, and decay computed from daily closes, not intraday. This goes well beyond the 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 dense but well-structured using RESPONSE and LIMITS headers. Every sentence contributes useful info, though it could be slightly more scannable with bullet lists. It remains front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) with field meanings, and covers limitations (TTL, snapshot gaps, decay basis). This is thorough for a telemetry tool with moderate complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both params (days default/clamp, window family). The description repeats defaults and adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what schema already provides, so baseline 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 clearly states a specific verb-resource pair: tracks edge persistence and decay over time from polymarket_edges snapshots. It distinguishes itself from siblings like polymarket_edges by focusing on 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'

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?

It provides clear context on when to use: when you need edge history/longevity, and highlights the trade distinction between fresh and old edges. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the purpose statement implies comparison with current-edge tools.

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

All Bcb Br 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose; even similar tools like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded are clearly differentiated by grounding behavior. Polymarket tools are separated by specific angles (arbitrage, edges, tracking, fill risk, cross-venue).

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use consistent snake_case with descriptive verbs (ask_, compare_, discover_, generate_, list_, recall_, etc.). No mixing of camelCase or other conventions.

Tool Count4/5

35 tools is on the higher end but justified by the breadth of functionality: Brazilian economics, Pipeworx data querying, company analysis, Polymarket betting, memory, subscriptions, etc. Each tool seems necessary, though a few could potentially be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers major CRUD operations and data retrieval across multiple domains. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to edit subscriptions directly, but unsubscribe/resubscribe works). Overall, the surface is well-rounded for the stated purposes.

Resources