Skip to main content
Glama

Blockscout

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral detail: explains that edge_pp_net is signed (negative = SELL YES), trend categories, and decay calculation from daily closes. It also notes snapshot gaps and TTL limits.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, response fields, limits. Every sentence adds value. It's somewhat lengthy but efficient for the information density. Minor improvement could be grouping limits more concisely.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the response structure: tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[], including field meanings and caveats (e.g., decay from daily closes, lifespan median). It also covers limits like snapshot TTL and start date. This makes the tool fully understandable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds valuable context: default values (14 days, '1wk'), clamp ranges (2-30), and admissible window values (24hr | 1wk | 1mo). This goes beyond the 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 clearly states the tool provides edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots. It answers a specific question: 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' It distinguishes itself by focusing on temporal behavior rather than just listing 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 explains when to use the tool: to differentiate fresh wide edges from old wide edges. It provides context about snapshot gaps and history limits. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with siblings like polymarket_edges, but the context is clear enough.

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

All Blockscout 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
Disambiguation1/5

The tool set includes multiple overlapping tools for predictions (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.) and data lookups (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded), and mixes blockchain tools with unrelated services, making it difficult for an agent to select the correct tool.

Naming Consistency1/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some use verb_noun (get_address, list_chains), others are multi-word phrases (ai_visibility_check, compare_entities), and styles mix snake_case and camelCase erratically.

Tool Count2/5

With 39 tools, the surface is bloated for a blockchain explorer. Many tools are unrelated to blockchain, inflating the count well beyond what is necessary for the server's stated purpose.

Completeness1/5

The server is named 'Blockscout' but includes mostly non-blockchain tools, leaving the blockchain domain severely incomplete. Even the blockchain-specific tools miss common operations like event logs or internal transactions.

Resources