Skip to main content
Glama

Data Norfolk

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. Description adds detailed output explanation, decay computation method, and snapshot TTL bounds, going beyond 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, followed by detailed output structure. Slightly verbose with 'RESPONSE:' section but each sentence adds value. Could be trimmed marginally.

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?

No output schema exists, so description fully explains return value fields with examples and edge cases (expired, gaps). Limitations on TTL and intraday vs daily are covered.

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 covers parameters with descriptions. Description adds constraint 'max 30' for days (schema says 'clamp 2-30') and enumerates window options (24hr, 1wk, 1mo) beyond schema's simple description.

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 explicitly states it provides 'edge persistence and decay telemetry' and answers a clear question. It distinguishes from sibling 'polymarket_edges' by focusing on time-series and trends.

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?

Implied usage context is given ('a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old wide edge are different trades'), but no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives like 'polymarket_edges' or 'polymarket_arbitrage'. Limitations are mentioned, but guidance is incomplete.

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

All Data Norfolk 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, deep_research overlaps ask_pipeworx for multi-faceted questions, and the five Polymarket tools plus bet_research all target the same market-analysis space. Several tools appear to do the same thing, and even detailed descriptions can't fully separate them.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and mostly readable, but the set mixes bare nouns (datasets, query, recall) with verb phrases (generate_llms_txt, validate_claim) and domain-prefixed compounds (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending). The ask_pipeworx family is internally consistent, but the overall pattern is not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold for a coherent set, especially since many are meta-tools (suggest_questions, discover_tools, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending) or one-off utilities (generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency). The server tries to cover data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and AI visibility in a single surface.

Completeness3/5

Within each subdomain (data lookup, memory, subscriptions, Polymarket) the main workflows are covered, and the memory/subscription clusters have full CRUD. But the server name promises Norfolk Open Data, which is barely represented by three read-only tools, and odd one-offs like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency have no supporting ecosystem.

Resources