Skip to main content
Glama

Crates

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations confirm read-only, open world, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds critical behavioral details: data from daily snapshots, 60-day TTL, decay computed from daily closes not intraday. No contradiction 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is somewhat lengthy but well-structured and front-loaded with the core question. Every sentence adds value, though some could be condensed.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) and covers edge cases like gaps and TTL. It is comprehensive for a complex time-series tool.

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?

Schema covers both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds context: days default 14, clamp 2-30; window options (24hr, 1wk, 1mo) and default '1wk'. This enhances understanding 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 snapshots, answering 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'. It distinguishes itself from the related tool 'polymarket_edges' by focusing on time-series analysis rather than 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 Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly indicates when to use the tool: to assess if a wide edge is fresh or old. It implies not for real-time edges by referencing daily snapshots. Arguments and defaults are explained, but no alternative tools are explicitly named.

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

All Crates 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The tool set includes several overlapping research/lookup tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile) and multiple Polymarket tools, which could confuse an agent despite detailed descriptions. The boundaries between these tools are explained in the descriptions, but the sheer number of similar-purpose tools creates ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., search_crates, get_versions, validate_claim), but there are exceptions like entity_profile, deep_research, and bet_research, which break the pattern. The overall naming is readable and mostly consistent, with the polymarket_ and pipeworx_ prefixes providing grouping.

Tool Count2/5

With 35 tools, the server is far too heavy for a focused service. The server name 'Crates' suggests a narrow domain, but only 5 tools relate to Rust crates, while the rest cover disparate areas (Pipeworx, Polymarket, memory management). This mismatch and high count make the tool surface unwieldy.

Completeness4/5

For the underlying Pipeworx/Polymarket domain that the majority of tools serve, the coverage is strong: lookup, grounded answers, research, entity profiles, comparisons, changes, claim validation, scanning, memory, subscriptions, tool discovery. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct summarization), but the set feels well-rounded for a data analysis agent.

Resources