Skip to main content
Glama

Data Cambridge

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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds extensive behavioral details: return structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), field meanings (trend, decay_pp_per_day, lifespan_days), data limitations (60-day TTL, gaps when snapshots not written), and computation basis (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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is lengthy and includes detailed explanations of response fields. While front-loaded with the core question, the extensive field documentation could be more concise or structured. It serves its purpose but could be streamlined.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly covers return values (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and their fields (trend, decay_pp_per_day, lifespan_days). It also addresses data limitations (TTL, gaps) and parameter defaults. With 100% schema coverage and rich behavioral context, the description is complete for an agent to understand and use the tool.

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%: both parameters (days, window) are described in the input schema. The description adds default values and slightly more context (e.g., window options: '24hr | 1wk | 1mo'), but overall adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly communicates the tool's purpose: tracking edge persistence and decay from daily snapshots, answering 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like polymarket_edges (current edges) or polymarket_arbitrage, slightly reducing clarity for an agent choosing among them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for historical edge analysis and provides context (e.g., 'a 3-week-old wide edge is wide for a reason'), but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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

All Data Cambridge 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most clusters have clear roles, and the detailed routing guidance separates ask_pipeworx from deep_research and grounded mode. However, three ask_pipeworx variants (one currently identical to stable), plus overlapping opportunity-discovery tools (polymarket_edges vs bet_research) and discovery/onboarding tools (discover_tools vs suggest_questions), leave several boundary cases where an agent could select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Many tools group under readable prefixes (ask_pipeworx, cambridge_, polymarket_, pipeworx_) and are mostly snake_case. But the set mixes bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), verb_noun actions (resolve_entity, validate_claim), and noun-phrase names (entity_profile, recent_changes, polymarket_fill_risk), so no single convention predicts the full API.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well into the 'too many' band, and the count is inflated by a kitchen-sink mix of data querying, prediction-market analysis, memory, subscriptions, feedback, llms.txt generation, and npm scanning. The server name 'Data Cambridge' suggests a narrow local-data scope, which makes the sprawl look even less appropriate.

Completeness3/5

Individual verticals are fairly complete: query/grounded/beta router levels, entity resolution/profile/compare/change, prediction-market discovery through fill-risk, and full memory and subscription CRUD. The major gap is discover_tools, which returns tools promoted as ready to call directly but no generic invocation tool is exposed, so the agent must route back through ask_pipeworx.

Resources