Skip to main content
Glama

Data Oakland

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description adds valuable behavioral context: snapshots are written on cache-miss so gaps exist, decay numbers come from daily closes not intraday, and it details the response structure including expired opportunities. 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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections: purpose, args, response, limits. It is front-loaded with the core question and remains efficient despite length. Every sentence adds value, so it earns its length.

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?

Given the tool has 2 optional parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, response fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), data source, gaps, TTL, and behavior caveats. No gaps remain for effective use.

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% so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema for parameters: it restates defaults and options for 'days' and 'window', and explains how parameters affect output (e.g., lookback days). It does not introduce new semantic details about parameter values.

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 built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots' and answers a specific question: 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' It uses a specific verb (query/retrieve) and resource (historical edge snapshots), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'polymarket_edges' which likely gives current edges.

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 usage for assessing edge freshness by contrasting a fresh wide edge with a three-week-old one, and explicitly mentions LIMITS (TTL, data gaps) that guide expectations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like 'polymarket_edges', though the context makes it inferable.

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

All Data Oakland 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 tool clusters have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical today, with ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research routing through the same 5,756-tool catalog, and validate_claim falling into the same grounded pipeline. The five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research all target prediction-market opportunities with overlapping outputs (edge_pp vs gap_pp vs spread_pp), and compare_entities/entity_profile/recent_changes share the same SEC/XBRL/news fan-out. The verbose descriptions help, but the set itself would frequently misroute an agent.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are uniformly snake_case with no casing mixing, and the ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, and pipeworx_* prefixes create recognizable families. However, the set mixes verb_noun names (validate_claim, list_subscriptions), bare verbs (query, recall, forget), and noun-phrase names (entity_profile, recent_alerts, datasets, metadata), so there is no single predictable pattern across the server.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is heavy, but the server's scope is genuinely enormous: it is a gateway to 5,756 tools across 1,504 sources, plus prediction-market analysis, subscriptions, and memory. The count is defensible for that scope, yet several tools (generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, ai_visibility_check, the memory trio) are peripheral to the core data mission, giving the set a scattershot feel and preventing a well-scoped rating.

Completeness4/5

The core data-research workflow is thoroughly covered: casual lookup (ask_pipeworx), grounded verification (ask_pipeworx_grounded, validate_claim), deep research (deep_research), entity resolution and profiling (resolve_entity, entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes), and a six-tool prediction-market suite. Subscriptions and memory have full lifecycles, and Oakland data offers search, schema, and query. Minor gaps exist — no subscription update/pause, no raw dataset export, and no write path for Oakland data — but no advertised workflow hits a dead end.

Resources