Skip to main content
Glama

Celestrak

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate safe read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds essential details: data comes from daily snapshots bounded by a 60-day TTL, decay numbers are from daily closes not intraday, and gaps indicate no scan occurred. No contradictions 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 detailed but well-structured with clear sections (RESPONSE, LIMITS). It is not overly terse but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but the structure aids readability.

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 compensates by fully detailing the response format (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and limitations. It covers all necessary context for an agent to understand what the tool returns and its constraints.

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?

Input schema fully documents both parameters (days, window) with descriptions and defaults. The description reinforces these with additional context (e.g., max 30 for days) and explains the response structure, which adds value 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's purpose: providing edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on tracking edges over time, answering specific questions about edge lifespan and trends.

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 the tool (e.g., to understand edge persistence) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives like polymarket_edges or polymarket_arbitrage. It provides context like the difference between fresh and old edges, which guides usage.

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

All Celestrak 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set mixes several distinct domains (satellite orbital data, Pipeworx data routing, prediction-market analysis, memory management, subscriptions), but within the Pipeworx umbrella there is heavy overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route natural-language questions to the same underlying 5,756 tools. An agent could easily misselect between them, especially since ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are described as currently identical.

Naming Consistency3/5

Many tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (list_subscriptions, create... none, but compare_entities, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, subscribe/unsubscribe, remember/recall/forget), yet the naming is inconsistent across the set: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, get_satellite, get_group, recent_alerts, recent_changes, entity_profile, and deep_research do not share a uniform convention. CamelCase appears in polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc. while most others are snake_case, and the satellite tools (get_satellite, get_group, search_by_name) form a distinct sub-pattern that clashes with the Pipeworx meta-tools.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is on the heavy side, and the effective surface is bloated: there are three variants of ask_pipeworx, four polymarket_* tools, three satellite-specific tools that are unrelated to the server's apparent core purpose, and several meta/utility tools (remember, recall, forget, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, suggest_questions) that could be consolidated or are only tangentially related. The count itself is not extreme, but the scope is muddled: the server claims the name Celestrak (satellite tracking) while the overwhelming majority of tools are for Pipeworx data access and prediction markets, making the tool count feel inappropriate for either purpose.

Completeness3/5

For the Pipeworx data-access domain, the tool set is quite thorough: natural-language routing, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiling, entity comparison, claim verification, semantic search, and tool discovery are all present. However, there are notable gaps: the subscription lifecycle lacks an update/resume mechanism, and the satellite domain (the server's namesake) is severely incomplete — only three lookup tools with no live tracking, no group listing beyond a handful of groups, and no clear lifecycle CRUD. The memory tools (remember/recall/forget) are minimal but complete for their narrow scope.

Resources