Skip to main content
Glama

Data Toronto

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations show read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds detailed output structure, decay computation, data source (cache-miss snapshots), and distinguishes between intraday and daily closes. No contradictions.

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?

Description is informative but somewhat lengthy. However, each sentence adds value, especially the output field explanations and limitations. Could be slightly more concise.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains response fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), computations (trend, decay), and data availability. Covers all necessary context for agent usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%. Description adds defaults (days=14, window='1wk'), constraints (max 30, clamp 2-30), and explains 'window' as snapshot family with examples.

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's purpose: edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'polymarket_edges' by focusing on temporal analysis.

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?

Provides context on when to use (assessing edge age vs. freshness) and mentions limitations (60-day TTL, snapshot start). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but context is strong.

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

All Data Toronto 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

Multiple query entry points have overlapping boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, suggest_questions and discover_tools both serve discovery/onboarding, and validate_claim overlaps with ask_pipeworx_grounded. With 34 tools including five Polymarket edge/scanner tools, an agent can easily select the wrong meta-tool despite the detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case, so there is no style chaos, but the pattern is inconsistent: verb-led names like ask_pipeworx and validate_claim mix with noun-led names like entity_profile, recent_alerts, and polymarket_arbitrage, plus bare memory verbs like remember/recall/forget. Related tools are also not aligned, such as ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is too many for a server branded 'Data Toronto', and many tools are only loosely related to the core data-access purpose: ask_pipeworx_beta, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, ai_visibility_check, and the memory trio feel like bolt-ons. Even granting Pipeworx's broad research scope, the set is over-stuffed rather than well-scoped.

Completeness4/5

The data-research surface is unusually comprehensive: search, deep research, entity resolution/profiling, comparison, claim validation, alerts/subscriptions, and Toronto open-data querying are all covered. The main gaps are Toronto-side metadata details like resource schemas/columns and a way to browse the full dataset catalogue without a keyword.

Resources