Skip to main content
Glama

Data Nashville

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context: snapshot-based data, gaps meaning no scan, 60-day TTL, and decay computation from daily closes. No contradiction.

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 fairly detailed but well-structured, front-loading purpose and response structure. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose in response details. Still well-organized.

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 output schema, the description compensates by fully detailing response fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and limitations. Provides complete context for an agent to understand behavior.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description repeats 'days' and 'window' defaults but adds minimal new semantic value 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.

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: tracking edge persistence and decay over time. It answers a specific question ('how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?') and distinguishes from siblings like polymarket_edges by focusing on historical snapshots.

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 provides context on when to use the tool (e.g., differentiating fresh vs. old edges). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct comparisons to alternatives, though siblings imply differentiation.

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

All Data Nashville 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical in current behavior, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, validate_claim, and deep_research all overlap with the same underlying routing. The six Polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread, bet_research) share domain and response fields, making misselection likely despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Snake_case is used throughout and prefix families (ask_pipeworx_*, nashville_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) are consistent within themselves. However, the overall set mixes verb-first names (ask, compare, remember, subscribe) with noun/adjective-first names (entity_profile, recent_alerts, recent_changes, bet_research), so no single predictable pattern governs all tools.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the server exceeds a coherent surface, especially for a server named 'Data Nashville' where only 3 of 34 tools actually serve Nashville data. The count is inflated by several largely unrelated feature families (AI visibility, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions), making the set feel like an aggregation of multiple products rather than one focused server.

Completeness3/5

Individual families are fairly complete: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/unsubscribe/list/recent_alerts, and Nashville has discovery/query/recent access. But the overall domain is unclear, and the Nashville-specific surface is thin (no search across datasets, no non-ArcGIS sources), leaving notable gaps relative to the server name.

Resources