Skip to main content
Glama

Boi Il

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the structure of the response (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), the meaning of decay_pp_per_day (signed by trade direction), and limitations like gaps in snapshot dates. Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, which aligns with the description.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core question, but the RESPONSE section is detailed (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and could be shortened or moved to an output schema. It is informative but slightly verbose for a description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return fields and limitations (TTL, decay computation). It is complete enough for an agent to understand the output and constraints, though it could mention error conditions or permissions.

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%, and the description adds value by clarifying 'window' as 'snapshot family' and providing default values. It slightly differs from schema on the 'days' range (says max 30 vs schema's clamp 2-30) but overall enhances understanding.

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' based on daily snapshots, and answers a specific question about edge age and trend. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_arbitrage 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 implies when to use by contrasting a fresh wide edge with a 3-week-old wide edge, indicating that this tool provides historical context not available elsewhere. It also lists LIMITS (e.g., 60-day TTL) that inform usage, but does not explicitly name alternative tools for comparison.

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

All Boi Il 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have highly detailed descriptions that clarify their distinct roles, and the pipeworx/boi/polymarket families are individually distinguishable. However, ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly described as currently identical to ask_pipeworx (a true duplicate), and the polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) share overlapping purpose and could cause misselection despite their lengthy docs.

Naming Consistency3/5

Many tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (compare_entities, discover_tools, resolve_entity, validate_claim), but a large subset uses noun-first or prefixed compound names (ai_visibility_check, bet_research, boi_exchange_rate, polymarket_arbitrage). The naming is readable and group-consistent (boi_*, polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx*) but the overall convention is mixed rather than uniform.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the set exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' and spans many unrelated domains (data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, llms.txt generation, feedback). The broad scope explains the count, but many tools feel like add-on utilities rather than a tightly scoped server, making the surface feel bloated.

Completeness4/5

The core domain—authoritative structured data access—is extremely well covered: universal routing, grounded mode, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, resolution, discovery, and suggestions. Minor gaps exist (no explicit tool for fetching a pipeworx:// citation URI directly, no update operation for subscriptions), but agents can work around these via the router and existing subscription lifecycle tools.

Resources