Skip to main content
Glama

Denue

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds significant context: data comes from daily snapshots, gaps mean no scan that day, decay computed from daily closes, and detailed explanation of tracked vs. expired arrays.

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 quite long and includes detailed response structure inline, which reduces conciseness. While well-structured, it could be more succinct by separating response format.

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?

Given the complexity and lack of output schema, the description provides a thorough explanation of response fields, limits, and caveats. Still, it could be more organized for easier parsing by an AI 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% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description restates defaults and bounds but adds little new information beyond what is already in the schema, warranting a baseline score.

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 from daily snapshots, answering specific timing-related questions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on historical analysis rather than current edges.

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 differentiate new vs. old edges) and provides default parameter values, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives among siblings.

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

All Denue 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are mostly distinct with detailed descriptions guiding usage, though some overlap exists between similar query tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, which could cause confusion for agents not reading carefully.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case and are readable, but there is no consistent verb-noun pattern. Prefixes vary widely (actions like ask, compare, generate vs. domains like denue, polymarket), making the naming scheme inconsistent.

Tool Count3/5

With 35 tools, the count is high for a server named 'Denue', which suggests a narrower focus. While the breadth may be justified by the platform's capabilities, the number feels slightly heavy and could be streamlined.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of data sources and operations, but it is read-only with no write capabilities for external data. Memory and subscription tools add some action, but overall, it is fairly complete for its stated purpose.

Resources