Skip to main content
Glama

Data Denver

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Description adds behavioral traits beyond annotations: response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), edge_pp_net sign, decay computation (daily closes, not intraday), and bounds (60-day TTL, snapshot enable time). 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Description is dense but well-structured, starting with purpose, then response format, then limits. Every sentence adds value, though slightly longer than necessary.

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?

With no output schema, description fully explains return values and their meaning, including edge_pp_net sign, trend classification, and date gaps. Covers limits and assumptions thoroughly.

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 has 100% coverage; description adds default values and clarifies semantics like 'snapshot family' for window. Provides more context than schema alone.

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 provides edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots, distinguishing it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges. It answers a specific question: how long an edge has existed and whether it's shrinking, with concrete examples.

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 implies when to use the tool (for historical trend analysis) and contrasts fresh vs. old edges, but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives.

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

All Data Denver 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Tools are richly described with clear use-cases, but several clusters overlap: ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research are all question-routing tools with similar names, and the five polymarket_* tools cover adjacent prediction-market analysis. An agent could easily pick the wrong one without reading the full descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names are snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun or domain_noun pattern (compare_entities, resolve_entity, denver_query, polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending). There are minor deviations like single verbs (remember, forget), adjective-first names (recent_alerts, deep_research), and domain-prefixed groups, but the overall style is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is a large surface for one server, pushing beyond the 25+ threshold where agents struggle to choose. While the platform is genuinely multi-domain (data lookup, prediction markets, Denver open data, memory, subscriptions, npm checks, llms.txt generation), several niche clusters like the 5-tool Polymarket suite and 3-tool memory trio inflate the count.

Completeness4/5

The server covers its domain well: general querying, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, company profiling, change feeds, subscription lifecycle (subscribe/list/unsubscribe/alerts), memory lifecycle (remember/recall/forget), and discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions). Minor gaps exist—such as no direct browsing of all Pipeworx sources—but agents can work around them.

Resources