Skip to main content
Glama

Ca Procurement

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description provides extensive behavioral details: data source (daily closes, not intraday), snapshot creation triggers (cache-miss), response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), and limits (60-day TTL, start date). 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. Despite length, every sentence adds value—e.g., response structure and limitations. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and their meanings. It covers data freshness, limitations, and edge cases, making it complete for this tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about defaults and the meaning of 'window' as snapshot family, but much of this is already in the schema. Extra nuance (e.g., 'snapshot family') justifies a 4.

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 identifies the tool as 'edge persistence and decay telemetry' built from daily snapshots, and answers specific questions about edge duration and decay. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_arbitrage.

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 the tool's purpose ('how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?') and contrasts fresh vs. old edges. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative sibling tools.

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

All Ca Procurement 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The tool set has severe overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve similar query/discovery purposes, and multiple polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research) overlap heavily in finding betting opportunities. An agent would struggle to select among these without deep familiarity, especially when ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical.

Naming Consistency2/5

Individual families are internally consistent (ca_procurement_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), but the server as a whole mixes domain-prefixed snake_case, bare verb phrases (ask_pipeworx, bet_research), and descriptive noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes). More importantly, the vast majority of tool names have nothing to do with the server's stated 'Ca Procurement' identity, so the naming fails to signal a coherent tool set.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well past the 25+ threshold for 'too many,' and over 85% of them (31 tools) are unrelated to California procurement—they cover general data lookup, prediction markets, npm packages, and memory storage. A scoped CA procurement server would reasonably have 5–8 tools; this is a general-purpose data platform wearing a procurement label.

Completeness3/5

The five relevant ca_procurement_* tools cover the main read-side query patterns well: award search, commodity rankings, department profiles, supplier aggregation, and top suppliers. However, the surface lacks contract/award detail retrieval by ID, solicitation or RFP search, and any vendor registration or contract lifecycle data, leaving notable gaps for a procurement-focused tool set.

Resources