Skip to main content
Glama

Connecticut Open Data

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description adds significant behavioral detail: history depth bounded by 60-day snapshot TTL, snapshots written on cache-miss (gaps mean no scan), decay from daily closes not intraday, and the full response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates). This gives the agent thorough insight into the tool's behavior and limitations.

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 long but well-structured and front-loaded with the key question it answers. It efficiently packs a lot of information without being overly verbose. Minor redundancy with schema prevents a perfect score.

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 documents the response structure, parameter semantics, limitations, and data source. For a tool of this complexity, the description is complete and leaves no major gaps for the agent.

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% and the parameters are fully described in the schema. The description repeats the parameter defaults and possible values (days, window) but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. According to rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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: providing edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots. It answers the specific question 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?', distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'polymarket_edges' which likely handles the raw snapshot data.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (for historical edge analysis) and explains that a fresh wide edge vs an old one represent different trades. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the sibling list provides context.

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

All Connecticut Open Data 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Multiple tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) have overlapping research purposes. Additionally, many Polymarket and Pipeworx-specific tools are unrelated to the Connecticut Open Data server name, causing confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is highly inconsistent: some use snake_case (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity), others use longer descriptive phrases (polymarket_fill_risk, scan_competitor_ai_presence), with no clear pattern.

Tool Count1/5

The server claims to be about Connecticut Open Data but includes 34 tools, only 3 of which (datasets, metadata, query) are relevant. The vast majority are unrelated Pipeworx/Prediction Market tools, making the size inappropriate.

Completeness1/5

For Connecticut Open Data coverage, only basic dataset search, metadata, and query tools exist. Missing common operations like data upload, schema modification, or API key management for the open data portal.

Resources