Skip to main content
Glama

Bhagavad Gita

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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: data comes from daily snapshots with gaps when no one scanned, decay computed from daily closes (not intraday), and the 60-day TTL. No contradiction 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 thorough but front-loaded with the core purpose. It explains the response structure and limits in an organized way. While somewhat lengthy, every sentence adds essential detail for a complex telemetry tool.

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 fully explains the response format (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates). It covers parameters, limits, and behavioral details like gap handling and decay calculation. The description is complete for the complexity of the tool.

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 description coverage is 100%. The description adds context for 'days' (lookback, default 14, max 30) and 'window' (snapshot family, default '1wk'), which slightly extends the schema descriptions but does not significantly change understanding. Baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots. It answers a specific question about edge duration and trend. It distinguishes itself from siblings like polymarket_edges by focusing on historical persistence rather than current edges.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to understand edge persistence and decay). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on historical analysis. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the limits and scope are well described.

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

All Bhagavad Gita 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
Disambiguation4/5

Individual tools have detailed descriptions and mostly distinct purposes, but the mix of domains (scripture, finance, data lookup) could confuse an agent about which tool to choose for a given task. However, within each subdomain, tools are clearly differentiated.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), some are noun_verb (entity_profile, recent_changes), and some are single verbs (forget, recall). The mix of snake_case with varied starting parts makes naming unpredictable.

Tool Count1/5

With 23 tools but only 3 related to the server's stated purpose (Bhagavad Gita), the tool count is severely mismatched. The vast majority belong to data analytics and finance, making the set feel bloated and mis-scoped.

Completeness1/5

For a Bhagavad Gita server, only list_chapters, get_chapter, and get_verse are provided, missing obvious features like search, commentary comparison, or multiple translations. The other tools are irrelevant to the domain, leaving it extremely incomplete.

Resources