Skip to main content
Glama

Dailymed

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?

The description provides extensive behavioral details beyond annotations, including output structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), how decay is computed, and limitations (snapshot TTL, caching behavior). It aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and adds critical context about gaps and data freshness.

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 thorough but verbose, with detailed field explanations and technical notes. It is well-structured with a clear opening, but could be more concise by moving some details (e.g., negative sign meaning) to parameter descriptions.

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 complexity and lack of output schema, the description is highly complete. It explains all output fields, edge cases (gaps, expired opportunities), and limitations (TTL, dependency on snapshot runs). Covers all necessary information for correct tool invocation.

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?

Both parameters are described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of 'days' as lookback and 'window' as snapshot family, including defaults and constraints such as max 30 days.

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 defines the tool's purpose: providing edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots. It precisely answers a specific question about edge longevity and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges (which likely provides current edges) by focusing on historical trends.

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 contrasts fresh vs old edges, implying when to use this tool for deeper analysis. It does not name alternative tools for exclusion, but the context of use is clearly implied by the telemetry focus.

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

All Dailymed 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded; deep_research; bet_research and multiple polymarket tools). This makes it difficult for an agent to distinguish which tool to use.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case and follow a verb_noun or noun_verb pattern. However, some names are very long and descriptive (e.g., polymarket_kalshi_spread, scan_competitor_ai_presence), which is acceptable but slightly inconsistent in length.

Tool Count3/5

With 38 tools, the server is on the high side of reasonable. Many are meta-tools or query routers, which inflates the count. The scope is very broad, covering diverse domains, making the number somewhat justifiable but still feeling heavy.

Completeness3/5

For the Dailymed domain, tools cover label search, retrieval, history, and comparison. However, many other domains (e.g., finance, prediction markets) rely on a handful of routing tools (ask_pipeworx) rather than dedicated tools, leaving the coverage uneven and not fully self-contained.

Resources