Skip to main content
Glama

chucknorris

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. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description goes far beyond by disclosing response structure (tracked/expired/snapshot_dates), data-gap causes (cache-miss), TTL limits (60-day snapshot TTL), and that decay is computed on daily closes, not intraday. This provides rich behavioral context without contradicting 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then systematically covers args, response format, and limitations. Every sentence provides essential detail (e.g., the meaning of expired[] and the median lifespan clock), earning its place. The structure with sections (Args, RESPONSE, LIMITS) 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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return format, including field meanings and edge cases like snapshot gaps and TTL bounds. It also covers limitations about history depth and data calculation, making the tool self-contained for an agent to use correctly.

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 clear parameter descriptions for days and window. The description restates these defaults and adds minimal context (e.g., 'lookback', 'snapshot family'), but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states it provides 'edge persistence and decay telemetry' and answers the specific question 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'. This clearly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from siblings like polymarket_edges, which focus on 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 gives a clear use case: comparing fresh vs. old wide edges, implying when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, but the context makes the distinction clear enough.

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

All chucknorris 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical query routers, and the five polymarket_* tools all hunt mispricings in subtly different ways. The memory trio (remember/recall/forget) and subscription trio (subscribe/unsubscribe/recent_alerts) are distinct, but the many data-query tools create frequent ambiguity for an agent deciding which one to call.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of verb_noun (list_categories, resolve_entity, validate_claim), bare nouns (entity_profile, random_joke, deep_research), single verbs (forget, recall), and brand-prefixed nouns (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending). There's no consistent pattern across the set, so an agent cannot predict a tool's name from its function.

Tool Count1/5

35 tools for a server named 'chucknorris' is an extreme mismatch; only 4 tools actually relate to Chuck Norris jokes. The rest form a sprawling collection of data-research, prediction-market, subscription, and memory utilities that have nothing to do with the stated server identity and overwhelm any agent expecting a simple joke API.

Completeness2/5

The Chuck Norris joke subset is complete (random, by-category, search, categories), but the overall server attempts many unrelated domains—structured data queries, prediction-market arb, entity profiles, subscriptions, memory—none of which are clearly scoped or fully coherent. The result is a grab-bag with no single domain that feels finished, and the incongruous inclusion of joke tools adds confusion rather than coverage.

Resources