Skip to main content
Glama

Ebi Ols

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations already declaring read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it uses daily snapshots, has a 60-day TTL, explains gaps in snapshot dates, and clarifies that decay numbers come from daily closes rather than intraday data. This goes well beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but well-structured with clear sections for Args, RESPONSE, and LIMITS. Every sentence provides value, including detailed response field explanations and caveats. It is front-loaded with the primary question the tool answers.

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 return values (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) and their semantics, including edge_pp_net sign convention, trend categories, and median lifespan. It also covers data depth limits and sampling methodology, making it complete for an AI agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates defaults (days=14, window='1wk') but adds little beyond the schema: 'window (snapshot family)' and 'max 30' correspond to schema details. No new parameter meaning is provided.

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 purpose: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots' and answers the specific question 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like polymarket_edges by focusing on historical edge persistence 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 provides clear context on when to use the tool ('Answers how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?') and contrasts a fresh wide edge with a 3-week-old one. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusions.

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

All Ebi Ols 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially among Pipeworx query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded), betting research tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_kalshi_spread), and memory tools (remember, recall, forget). An agent could easily select the wrong tool. Additionally, tools like 'discover_tools', 'search', and 'search_within' have unclear boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tool names use snake_case (e.g., 'entity_profile', 'validate_claim'), but there are inconsistencies with single-word verbs like 'forget', 'recall', 'remember', 'subscribe', 'unsubscribe', and the mixed pattern of 'ask_pipeworx' vs 'pipeworx_feedback'. Overall, the naming is somewhat consistent but not fully predictable.

Tool Count3/5

With 32 tools, the server has a high but not extreme count. However, the tools span multiple unrelated domains (ontologies, financial data, betting, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility), making the server feel like a collection of disparate features rather than a focused toolset. This reduces the appropriateness of the count for a single server.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface has significant gaps. For example, ontology tools lack create/update/delete operations; betting tools only provide research and analysis but no placement; memory tools allow save/recall/delete but not update; and there is no tool for user authentication or account management despite subscription features. The server covers many areas but none completely.

Resources