Skip to main content
Glama

Data Tours

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?

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it details the response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), explains limitations (60-day TTL, snapshot start date, decay from daily closes not intraday), and clarifies that data is derived from snapshots. This richness compensates for the absence of an output schema.

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 relatively long but well-structured, with the main purpose front-loaded. The RESPONSE section is organized with clear bullet points. A few phrases could be trimmed, but overall 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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the response fields (tracked with edge_pp_net time-series, first_seen, trend, decay; expired with lifespan; snapshot_dates) and covers limitations. It provides a complete mental model for the agent.

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%, both parameters have clear descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying 'window' as 'snapshot family' and default values. Given high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 core question about edge duration and shrinkage. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'polymarket_edges' by focusing on telemetry rather than raw edge data.

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 explains when to use the tool: to understand if an edge is fresh or aging, with a concrete example contrasting fresh vs. old wide edges. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear and sufficient for an agent to decide.

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

All Data Tours 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Even closely related tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research are well-differentiated by their use cases and safety guarantees. The multiple polymarket tools each focus on a unique aspect (arbitrage, edge scanning, persistence, fill risk, cross-venue spreads), avoiding ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use lowercase with underscores, following a mostly verb_noun or domain_prefix_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, resolve_entity). A few names like dataset_info and ai_visibility_check deviate slightly from a strict verb_noun structure, but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count4/5

With 33 tools, the server is on the heavier end of the well-scoped range. However, the count is justified by the breadth of functionality: data queries, prediction markets, entity resolution, memory, monitoring, and more. The tools each serve a specific purpose, and none feel redundant.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a wide range of use cases including data retrieval, comparison, research, monitoring, and memory. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for placing prediction market trades or creating/updating Tours Métropole datasets), but these are likely intentional scope choices. Core workflows are well-supported.

Resources