Skip to main content
Glama

Bis

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even with annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds significant behavioral context: snapshots are written on cache-miss, gaps mean no scan, history is bounded by 60-day TTL, and decay uses daily closes not intraday. This goes well beyond the annotations, disclosing important caveats.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is structured with purpose first, then args, then detailed RESPONSE and LIMITS sections. Although lengthy, every sentence earns its place, covering all essential aspects without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and provides a clear roadmap for the reader.

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 the tool's complexity and absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) and key metrics (trend, decay_pp_per_day, lifespan_days). It also addresses limitations and data collection behavior, making it complete for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the 'days' parameter as lookback with a default of 14 and max 30 (though schema says clamp 2-30), and 'window' as the snapshot family with default '1wk'. It also explains how parameters affect the telemetry (e.g., window family), going slightly beyond schema 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots.' It clearly answers the key question 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on persistence/decay rather than current edge values.

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: for assessing edge persistence and decay over time, with the example that a fresh wide edge differs from a 3-week-old wide edge. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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

All Bis 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have carefully written distinctions, but several overlap in purpose: ask_pipeworx versus ask_pipeworx_beta are currently functionally identical, and ask_pipeworx, deep_research, validate_claim, and the Polymarket research tools all sit on the same factual-question axis. The long descriptions help an agent choose, but the set still has multiple ambiguous boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are uniformly snake_case and mostly readable, with clear prefix families like pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, and ask_pipeworx*. However, the verb-noun pattern is inconsistent: many tools are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, polymarket_edges) and some are bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), so the naming is not predictable across the full set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold and feels like an organic platform dump rather than a curated server. The broad data-platform scope partly justifies the number, but the presence of near-duplicate entry points and one-off utilities (generate_llms_txt, ai_visibility_check, scan_dependency) makes the set feel bloated rather than cohesive.

Completeness4/5

For a read-heavy data/research platform the surface is unusually complete: discovery, single-lookup, grounded-answer, deep-research, entity resolution, comparison, change-tracking, subscriptions, memory, and feedback are all covered. Missing write/execution capabilities like placing trades or modifying BIS flows are reasonable absences for this kind of server; the main gap is a dedicated historical/trend utility beyond the general router.

Resources