Skip to main content
Glama

Data Cincinnati

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description expands significantly: explains it reads snapshots, lists response fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), details decay calculation ('daily closes of edge_pp_net, not intraday'), and discloses limits (60-day TTL, snapshot start time). No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded with purpose and key question. Uses efficient structure: starts with purpose, then explains with concrete examples, lists response fields in a readable format, and concludes with limitations. Every sentence adds value; no filler.

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 all response fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) with their sub-fields, and covers input parameters and limitations. For a complex tool, this is complete and leaves no obvious gaps.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds default values (days=14, window='1wk'), valid ranges (days clamp 2-30), and clarifies window as 'snapshot family', providing meaning 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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry' answering 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'. It specifies the resource (daily polymarket_edges snapshots) and verb (provides telemetry), distinguishing it from siblings like polymarket_edges (raw snapshots) and polymarket_arbitrage (different angle).

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 clear context on when to use the tool via examples (fresh wide edge vs. old wide edge) and explains output fields. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools for different needs, though the unique focus on persistence/decay is implied.

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

All Data Cincinnati 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical), ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route the same queries, and the five polymarket_* tools overlap in opportunity scanning. entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes also pull similar company data, making tool selection genuinely ambiguous.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names are snake_case with a mostly verb-first convention (ask_pipeworx, scan_dependency, validate_claim, resolve_entity). A few noun-first names like polymarket_edges, entity_profile, and recent_alerts deviate slightly, but the pattern is predictable and readable throughout the 34-tool set.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the surface is heavy for what the server name (Data Cincinnati) implies, and only 3 tools actually relate to Cincinnati open data. The rest spans prediction markets, npm analysis, AI visibility, memory, and subscriptions, suggesting either scope creep or a misleading server name.

Completeness3/5

The research workflow is fairly covered: discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions), query (ask_pipeworx), grounding (ask_pipeworx_grounded), verification (validate_claim), profiling (entity_profile), comparison (compare_entities), and monitoring (subscribe, recent_changes). However, notable gaps exist — no direct single-source raw query, no export/visualization, no subscription or alert management details beyond basic CRUD, and the Cincinnati-specific surface is thin (no geospatial or full-catalog access).

Resources