Skip to main content
Glama

Cnb Cz

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds behavioral details: history depth bounded by 60-day TTL, snapshots on cache-miss, gaps meaning no scan, decay from daily closes, and response structure. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is structured logically: purpose, response breakdown, limits. Every sentence adds value; no unnecessary verbiage. It is dense but not verbose.

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?

Though no output schema, the description thoroughly explains response fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and limitations. Complete for a read-only query tool.

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% and schema descriptions already include defaults and clamp values. The description adds little beyond glossing the meaning of 'window' as snapshot family. 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 clearly states the purpose: providing edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots. It answers a specific question about edge age and trend, and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'polymarket_edges' which likely provides current edges only.

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 usage after obtaining a current edge from polymarket_edges, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context is clear but lacks explicit when-not or alternative references.

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

All Cnb Cz 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 overall, but some pairs (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded, entity_profile vs recent_changes) could cause agent confusion without careful reading. Descriptions mitigate overlap, so only minor ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools use snake_case with verb_noun or noun_verb patterns, but several single-word verbs (forget, recall, remember, subscribe) and a few inconsistent forms (czeonia, pribor) break uniformity. Still, the pattern is largely predictable.

Tool Count4/5

31 tools is high but justified for a multi-domain data gateway covering finance, economics, FDA, betting, and subscriptions. Each tool has a clear role, though the count pushes the upper bound for easy scanning.

Completeness5/5

The tool set comprehensively covers its stated domains: entity resolution, financial data, exchange rates, interest rates, SEC filings, FDA, Polymarket analysis, subscriptions, and utility memory. No obvious gaps given its purpose as a data retrieval and analysis server.

Resources