Skip to main content
Glama

Ecb

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).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds extensive behavioral context: data source, trend computation, response structure (tracked with time-series, expired with lifespan, snapshot dates), and notes on interpretation of signed edge_pp_net.

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 somewhat long but efficiently organized: starts with core concept, then details response fields and limitations. Every sentence provides value, though could be slightly trimmed.

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 the complexity (time-series, multiple response arrays, trend calculation) and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains every aspect of the tool's output and behavior, making it fully understandable.

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%, but the description adds meaning by explaining days as lookback with defaults and window as snapshot family with listed options. It clarifies the purpose of each parameter beyond the schema.

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, answering 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'. This distinguishes it from siblings like polymarket_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 Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives context on when to use (e.g., differentiating fresh vs aged edges) and lists limits like 60-day snapshot TTL and decay from daily closes. It lacks explicit exclusions but the guidance is clear.

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

All Ecb 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There is significant overlap between tool clusters: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently functionally identical to ask_pipeworx, and polymarket_arbitrage/polymarket_edges/bet_research all target similar opportunity-discovery tasks. While the descriptions are extremely detailed, the sheer number of similar variants makes it hard to reliably pick the right one.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are consistently snake_case with meaningful prefixes (ask_, ecb_, polymarket_, pipeworx_) and mostly verb-first structure. Minor deviations like entity_profile and ecb_hicp_inflation are noun-first, but they do not break the overall pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is well beyond the well-scoped 3–15 range, and the surface feels bloated with redundant meta-tools (ask_pipeworx variants, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions) and peripheral utilities like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency. Many entries could be consolidated without losing function.

Completeness4/5

For the server's broad data-research domain, coverage is thoughtful and full: query, grounded answer, validation, entity resolution, profiling, comparative analysis, subscription lifecycle, memory, and feedback are all represented. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct raw ECB flow browser beyond generic SDMX) but nothing blocking.

Resources