Skip to main content
Glama

Crawlbase

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant behavioral context: snapshot frequency, cache-miss gaps, response structure (tracked/expired/snapshot_dates), and that decay is from daily closes (not intraday). 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core concept and uses structured sections (RESPONSE, LIMITS). While it is relatively long, every sentence provides necessary detail. The structure 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description fully explains the response fields (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) and their semantics. It also covers limits (TTL, snapshot start) and parameter defaults. The tool's purpose and behavior are comprehensively described.

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 coverage is 100% and parameters are described. The description adds examples for 'window' (24hr, 1wk, 1mo) and default values. There is a slight discrepancy: description says days 'max 30' while schema says 'clamp 2-30', but both are consistent overall.

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's purpose: 'edge persistence and decay telemetry' and answers the specific question 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'. It distinguishes between fresh wide edges and old ones, which differentiates it from sibling tools like polymarket_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 implies usage context by explaining the difference between edges of different ages and provides limits (60-day TTL, snapshot start). It does not explicitly list when to avoid using the tool or direct alternatives, but the sibling polymarket_edges is referenced in the description's context.

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

All Crawlbase 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
Disambiguation4/5

The toolset is largely distinct: scraping, research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription tools each have clear boundaries. The ask_pipeworx family and the six Polymarket tools are closely related variants, but their descriptions provide explicit usage guidance, so an agent can select correctly with attention.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case with descriptive names, but conventions are mixed: brand-prefixed noun phrases (crawlbase_scrape, polymarket_arbitrage, pipeworx_trending) sit alongside verb_noun tools (compare_entities, validate_claim) and bare verbs (remember, subscribe). The result is readable but not predictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the server spans several distinct domains (web scraping, structured data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, feedback), making it feel like a kitchen sink rather than a focused toolset. The count is beyond the 'heavy' threshold and would benefit from splitting into separate servers.

Completeness4/5

The research surface is thorough: routing, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, and identifier resolution cover most real-world data needs. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool to fetch pipeworx:// resource URIs and no crawler management for the scraping side.

Resources