Skip to main content
Glama

Data Ua

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. Description adds behavior beyond annotations: details response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), limits (60-day TTL, daily closes), and clarifies that values are signed by trade direction.

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 comprehensive and well-structured, using bullet points for response fields. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While lengthy, every sentence adds value given the tool's complexity.

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 lacking an output schema, the description fully explains the response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and caveats (limits, decay computation). This provides sufficient context for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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?

Both parameters (days, window) are fully described in the input schema with defaults and constraints. The description adds minor context (default values, clamp for days, snapshot family for window) but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond schema coverage.

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 function: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots.' It answers a specific question and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges (raw edges) and polymarket_arbitrage.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Answers "how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?"' and provides a concrete trade difference example. Implies alternatives when not needed (e.g., raw edges via polymarket_edges).

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

All Data Ua 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, though the three ask_pipeworx variants (standard, beta, grounded) are very similar, potentially causing confusion. The Polymarket and memory tool families are well-differentiated.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use snake_case consistently, with a clear verb_noun pattern (e.g., resolve_entity, search_datasets, subscribe). No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

34 tools is high but justified given the breadth of the Pipeworx platform and Ukraine Open Data integration. The set covers a wide range of data sources and operations without feeling bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is thorough, covering querying, comparison, profiling, subscriptions, and memory. Minor redundancy in ask_pipeworx variants, but no significant gaps for the stated data-access purpose.

Resources