Skip to main content
Glama

Disney

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 convey safety (readOnly, idempotent, etc.). The description adds significant behavioral detail: it uses snapshots, computes decay from daily closes (not intraday), explains response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), and notes that decay is based on |edge_pp_net| signed by trade direction. No contradictions with 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?

The description is well-structured: starts with purpose, then args, then response format, finally limitations. It is informative but slightly verbose; could be trimmed slightly while retaining all needed context.

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, the description explains the full response structure (tracked with trend/decay, expired with lifespan, snapshot_dates). It covers limitations (TTL, snapshotting start, intraday vs. daily closes). This provides complete context for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 is 100% with descriptions for both 'days' and 'window'. The description adds value by specifying defaults (14, '1wk'), max (30), and clarifying 'snapshot family' for window. This reinforces schema info and aids understanding.

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 it provides 'edge persistence and decay telemetry' from daily snapshots, specifying the exact question it answers. It differentiates from sibling tools (e.g., polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage) by focusing on historical persistence rather than current state or arbitrage.

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 gives clear usage context: it answers 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' and provides a concrete example contrasting a fresh vs. 3-week-old edge. It also notes limitations (60-day TTL, intraday not covered). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or recommend alternatives.

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

All Disney 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a highly distinct purpose, from Disney character lookups to financial data and prediction market analysis. Agent can easily distinguish them by name and description.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions vary wildly: some use verb_noun (list_characters), others are phrases (ask_pipeworx) or compound nouns (polymarket_arbitrage). No consistent pattern across tools.

Tool Count1/5

34 tools is far too many for a Disney-themed server. Only 3 tools (list_characters, search_characters, get_character) relate to Disney; the rest are general-purpose data tools that belong elsewhere.

Completeness1/5

For a Disney server, the tool surface is severely incomplete. Missing basic CRUD for characters, no info on movies, parks, or media. Extraneous tools do not fill these gaps.

Resources