Skip to main content
Glama

Chainlist

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses extensive behavioral traits beyond annotations: data source (daily snapshots), response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), meaning of trend fields, and that snapshots are written on cache-miss causing gaps. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this without contradiction.

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 a clear purpose sentence, usage context, and detailed response format. It is fairly long but each sentence adds value. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'default 14' mentioned twice) prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description compensates for the lack of output schema by detailing the response fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and their meaning. It also covers limitations. While thorough, it lacks explicit data types or a concrete example, so a perfect score is not warranted.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minor context (e.g., default values and allowed values) but largely repeats the schema. The slight inconsistency in 'max 30' vs schema's 'clamp 2-30' is a minor detraction. Overall, baseline 3 is appropriate as description adds little beyond 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: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots.' It answers a specific question about edge duration and trend, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool, e.g., 'a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old wide edge are different trades' and explains limitations like history depth bounded by 60-day TTL and decay from daily closes. It implicitly suggests when not to use (for current edges use polymarket_edges), but does not name alternatives explicitly.

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

All Chainlist 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools have distinct purposes with clear descriptions, but ask_pipeworx_beta currently duplicates ask_pipeworx, and the multiple prediction market tools could be confusing without careful reading.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun or noun_verb pattern, with no mixing of conventions.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is high for a single server, covering chain data, Pipeworx research, and prediction markets. While well-organized, the breadth pushes the boundary of manageable scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers major query operations for chains, entities, and data sources, with subscription and memory features. Minor gaps like lack of chain creation are acceptable given the server's focus on data retrieval.

Resources