Skip to main content
Glama

Codewars

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
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it uses daily closes (not intraday), history is bounded by 60-day TTL, data gaps exist when no scan, and the response structure includes tracked, expired, and snapshot_dates arrays.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is dense and includes detailed response structure, which is necessary due to missing output schema. However, it is somewhat verbose and could be more concise by separating response structure into an output schema.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the response arrays (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and limitations. It covers the key fields and data behavior, though it could be more structured.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minor context (default, max, clamp) but does not significantly extend beyond what the schema provides.

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 that the tool tracks edge persistence and decay from daily snapshots, distinguishing it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges. It specifies the core question it answers and differentiates between a fresh wide edge and an old wide edge.

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 context by explaining the difference between fresh and old edges, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond the implicit contrast with polymarket_edges.

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

All Codewars 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

The 4 Codewars tools (kata, user, user_authored, user_completed) are distinct, but the 31 Pipeworx tools create real overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly'), and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-twins of the same router, and the five polymarket_* tools (edges, arbitrage, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) have heavily overlapping opportunity-discovery purposes. discover_tools and suggest_questions also both serve as 'what can I ask' entry points. Agents will misselect between the three ask_pipeworx variants and across the prediction-market suite.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: bare nouns (kata, user), bare verbs (forget, remember, subscribe), adjective_noun (recent_alerts, recent_changes), verb_noun (validate_claim, bet_research), and noun_verb (user_authored, user_completed) all appear. Even within the small Codewars family the prefix style is inconsistent — kata and user are bare nouns while user_authored and user_completed expect a user_ prefix, and remember/recall/forget use a different verb style than the rest of the server.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools exceeds the 25+ 'too many' threshold for a coherent server. Worse, 31 of the 35 are Pipeworx meta-research tools unrelated to the server's namesake (Codewars), so the count is drastically inflated relative to its apparent purpose — the server presents a full finance/prediction-market/research gateway while contributing only 4 tools to its advertised domain.

Completeness2/5

The actual Codewars surface has significant gaps: kata, user, user_authored, and user_completed are purely read-only, with no solution submission, attempt/training history, leaderboard access, or kata search by difficulty/language. Meanwhile the Pipeworx side is over-complete for a server not named for it, leaving the server's stated identity under-covered with no way to perform any write operation on the Codewars platform.

Resources