Skip to main content
Glama

Doaj

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds valuable behavioral context: data sources (snapshots), decay details, limitations (TTL, gaps), and response structure. No contradiction 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?

Description is well-structured, front-loaded with purpose, then response details. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose. Could be tightened slightly but still efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, so description fully compensates by detailing the response objects (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and their fields. Limitations are also covered. Complete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so description doesn't need to add much for parameters. It restates defaults and max (with minor difference from schema clamp) but doesn't add new semantics beyond schema. 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?

Description clearly states the tool provides 'edge persistence and decay telemetry' from daily snapshots, answers a specific question, and distinguishes between fresh and old edges. It also lists response fields, making purpose very clear and distinct from siblings.

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?

Explains when to use (to check edge persistence and decay) with a trade example. Mentions limitations like history depth and decay computation. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, 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 Doaj 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters have overlapping purposes: the three ask_pipeworx variants are nearly identical, polymarket_edges and polymarket_arbitrage both scan for opportunities, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence create confusion. Although descriptions are detailed, an agent could easily misselect among these.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow snake_case verb_noun (get_article, search_journals, resolve_entity), but there are brand-prefixed names (ask_pipeworx*, pipeworx_trending, pipeworx_feedback) and noun-phrase tools (entity_profile, bet_research) that break the pattern. The three ask_pipeworx variants are consistently named but confusable.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a coherent server, especially one where many tools are meta-routes (ask_pipeworx, deep_research) that could consolidate functionality. The count exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'heavy' and includes several one-off tools (generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) that don't fit the dominant data-access theme.

Completeness3/5

The DOAJ subset is complete for read-only search and retrieval, but the server lacks a clear domain: it mixes DOAJ, prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions. For the broader Pipeworx platform, there are some dead ends (e.g., no subscription editing, no raw historical market data, no batch tools), and the non-DOAJ tools create confusion about what the server is actually for.

Resources