Skip to main content
Glama

Bts

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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about snapshot caching (gaps mean no scan) and response behavior (expired items, decay calculation). 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 well-structured with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by response details and limits. It is lengthy but each part adds value; minor redundancy in default values could be trimmed.

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 thoroughly explains the response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates with field details) and mentions limits (snapshot TTL, decay from daily closes). This is sufficient for an analysis 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?

The input schema already describes both parameters with full coverage. The description repeats defaults and adds minor context ('lookback', 'snapshot family'), but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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' and answers a specific question about edge longevity. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'polymarket_edges' by focusing on time-series analysis and decay.

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 (e.g., comparing fresh vs. old edges) and details the response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]). It includes limits like snapshot TTL and decay calculation method, but lacks explicit alternative tools for different needs.

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

All Bts 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with clear descriptions, but the multiple ask_pipeworx variants and several Polymarket tools could cause initial confusion. An agent reading carefully can differentiate them, but the similarity in themes requires attention.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names use a mix of conventions: verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), noun_noun (entity_profile, dataset_columns), and single verbs (remember, forget). While some subgroups have internal consistency (e.g., polymarket_*), there is no overall predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the count exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25. While the server is comprehensive, the large number of highly specific tools (especially for prediction markets) feels overwhelming and could confuse agents.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of capabilities: data querying, entity resolution, company analysis, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and validation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no data writing tools), but for the read-heavy analytical purpose, it is nearly complete.

Resources