Skip to main content
Glama

Data Orlando

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
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the LIMITS of history depth (60-day TTL, snapshot start), that decay is based on daily closes not intraday, and that snapshot gaps occur on cache-miss days. No contradictions with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is thorough but somewhat lengthy. It front-loads the purpose but includes a detailed breakdown of response fields and limits. Every sentence adds value, but it could be more compact for quick reading.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) with key attributes. For a 2-parameter read-only tool, this provides good completeness, though it could briefly note that results are read-only.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context: default days is 14, max clamp 30, window options and default '1wk', and clarifies 'window' as a snapshot family. This adds meaningful usage hints beyond the schema.

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' and answers the question of how long an edge has existed and whether it is shrinking. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on time-series trend analysis.

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?

The description implies usage for analyzing edge persistence and decay but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any conditions for not using it. The context of comparing edges of different ages is clear, but guidance is implicit.

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

All Data Orlando 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several clusters overlap in purpose: ask_pipeworx / ask_pipeworx_beta / ask_pipeworx_grounded / deep_research all answer factual questions, and the six Polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread, bet_research) have subtle boundaries even with detailed descriptions. The descriptions are strong, but an agent must read carefully to reliably pick the right tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim) with recognizable family prefixes (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, ask_pipeworx_*). Minor deviations like single-noun names (datasets, metadata, query) and mixed lookup verbs (ask vs query vs search vs discover) keep it from a 5.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy for a single server, and the scope sprawls across general data routing, prediction-market analytics, memory management, subscription bookkeeping, AI visibility checks, and npm dependency scanning. The families are organized, but the count exceeds the 25-tool threshold and would be better split into focused servers.

Completeness4/5

For a data-research server, coverage is broad: universal routing, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, change feeds, claim verification, dataset search/query/metadata, subscriptions, and memory. Minor gaps exist—no subscription update operation and no full-catalog browse beyond search—but agents can work around them.

Resources