Skip to main content
Glama

Crypto Fng

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, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description goes beyond by explaining snapshot TTL (60 days), daily close-based decay, and the meaning of trend and decay fields, giving full behavioral context.

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 informative and well-structured, starting with purpose, then parameters, response format, and limitations. It is fairly lengthy but every sentence adds value.

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 lacking an output schema, the description fully explains the response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) with field meanings. Combined with rich annotations and clear parameters, it is complete.

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 100% with descriptions. The description adds default values and constraints (e.g., 'default 14, max 30' for days) and explains the meaning of 'window' as snapshot family, complementing 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's purpose: tracking edge persistence and decay over time. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'polymarket_edges' by focusing on temporal analysis (history and decay) rather than just current 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?

Provides implied usage context by contrasting a 'fresh wide edge' against a '3-week-old wide edge' to indicate when historical context matters. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives.

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

All Crypto Fng 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route questions through the same underlying catalog with only subtle differences. The polymarket family (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread, bet_research) also has fuzzy boundaries. Only the Crypto Fear & Greed tools are clearly distinct.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern, but there are notable deviations: the ask_pipeworx_* family uses object-style names, pipeworx_feedback and polymarket_edges are noun_noun, and current_index vs index_history uses 'index' inconsistently. The polymarket_* family mixes verb and noun styles internally.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is heavy for a server ostensibly named 'Crypto Fng' — only 2 of the tools relate to that core purpose. The rest constitute a broad generic data-research and prediction-market platform that would be more appropriately scoped as its own server. The count exceeds the comfortable range for an agent to reason over.

Completeness4/5

Within the actual (broad) domain, the surface is fairly complete: discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions), querying (ask_pipeworx family), grounded verification (validate_claim, ask_pipeworx_grounded), deep research, entity resolution/profile/comparison, memory lifecycle, and subscription lifecycle. The named crypto-sentiment domain is fully covered with current and historical index tools, though the underlying 5,708 pack tools are only reachable indirectly through the router.

Resources