Skip to main content
Glama

Clickup

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 declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, which the description does not contradict. The description adds behavioral details (60-day snapshot TTL, decay from daily closes not intraday, response structure) that go beyond the 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 long but structured with clear sections (RESPONSE, LIMITS). Every sentence provides useful information, though some redundancy could be trimmed. It remains compact for the amount of detail.

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?

For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the response format (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), limits (60-day TTL), and source of data. It is comprehensive and leaves little ambiguity.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds context: default values, clamp range for days, and meaning of 'window' (snapshot family). This adds modest 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 provides 'edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily polymarket_edges snapshots', answering a specific question about edge longevity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'polymarket_edges' which likely provide raw edge data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is used for checking edge existence and decay trends, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'polymarket_edges' or 'polymarket_arbitrage'. No exclusions or contextual guidance are given.

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

All Clickup 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap among query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and among prediction market tools. Detailed descriptions help differentiate, but the large number of tools increases chance of misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is highly inconsistent, mixing snake_case and camelCase conventions. ClickUp tools use 'clickup_' prefix while Pipeworx tools have varied patterns (ask_, scan_, validate_, etc.). No unified convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a server named 'Clickup', with only 6 ClickUp-specific tools. The remaining 29 are from Pipeworx, which is unrelated. The count is inappropriate for the server's stated purpose.

Completeness2/5

The ClickUp integration is incomplete, missing basic CRUD operations like update and delete tasks. The Pipeworx side is comprehensive but not relevant to the server's name. For a ClickUp server, coverage is poor.

Resources