Skip to main content
Glama

Data Pa

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds rich context: response structure with tracked/expired/snapshot_dates, limitations (60-day TTL, daily closes, no intraday). Goes well 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?

Well-structured: starts with purpose, details response fields, ends with limits. Dense with information; every sentence adds value. Slightly long but justified given no output schema.

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 no output schema, description thoroughly explains all response fields (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) and covers limits and assumptions. Complete for a read-only telemetry tool.

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 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds default values, clamp range, and explains window as 'snapshot family' with examples. Provides useful context beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states it provides edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots, answering a specific question about edge age and trend. Distinguishes from sibling tool polymarket_edges which likely provides raw 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?

Explicitly says when to use: to know how long an edge has existed and if it's shrinking. Implicitly contrasts with single-snapshot analysis. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but context is clear.

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

All Data Pa 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several clusters blur together: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical today), and ask_pipeworx_grounded share routing, while discover_tools/suggest_questions and the Polymarket edge/arbitrage/fill-risk tools have overlapping discovery purposes. Rich descriptions reduce some confusion, but an agent must read carefully to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are lowercase snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern: ask_pipeworx/beta/grounded and polymarket_* are domain-prefixed, entity_profile/recent_changes are noun phrases, and query/metadata/remember are bare verbs or nouns. The naming is still readable and subfamilies share prefixes, so it is mixed rather than chaotic.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is above the comfortable range for a single MCP server, and several could be folded together (the beta variant, visibility checks, and Polymarket scanners). The breadth reflects a large platform, but the surface feels heavy for an agent to select from confidently.

Completeness4/5

The query side is strong: PA Open Data has datasets/metadata/query coverage, and Pipeworx provides ask, deep_research, entity_profile, compare, recent_changes, validate_claim, plus subscriptions and memory with lifecycle coverage. Minor gaps: descriptions promise resolvable pipeworx:// citations but no resource/read tool is exposed, and there is no direct way to fetch an arbitrary record by citation.

Resources