Skip to main content
Glama

Edmtrain

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds extensive behavioral details: data source (daily snapshots), response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), limits (60-day TTL, decay from daily closes), and interpretation of negative values.

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 with a clear overview first, then detailed response breakdown. It is somewhat verbose but justified by the complexity.

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 is provided, but the description thoroughly documents all output fields (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) and their semantics, making the tool sufficiently understandable.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description only repeats and lightly clarifies the defaults and clamping, adding minimal extra meaning.

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 that the tool provides 'edge persistence and decay telemetry' and answers when an edge has existed and if it is shrinking. It is distinct from siblings like 'polymarket_edges' which likely gives 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 implies when to use the tool (to see edge history) and contrasts different aged edges, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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

All Edmtrain 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

Several tools have overlapping or near-identical purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently functionally identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded is the same router with an extraction step, and discover_tools vs suggest_questions both serve as 'what can I do here' entry points. The polymarket_* family is more distinct, but the ask_pipeworx/deep_research overlap alone makes tool selection genuinely ambiguous.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow lowercase snake_case with recognizable domain prefixes (ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), which is a decent pattern. However, there are bare-noun tools (events, locations, recall, forget) and mixed verb-first vs noun-first ordering (list_subscriptions vs entity_profile, scan_dependency vs polymarket_edges), so it is not perfectly uniform.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well above the comfortable range and feels heavy even for a broad data-research platform. Many tools are narrow variations (five polymarket analysis tools, four ask_pipeworx variants, three memory tools) that could plausibly be consolidated or exposed as parameterized modes rather than separate top-level tools.

Completeness4/5

For the actual domain suggested by the tool names and descriptions—structured data research, entity profiling, claim verification, and prediction-market analysis—the surface is quite complete: lookup, grounded answers, deep research, comparisons, recent-change tracking, subscriptions, memory, and arbitrage/fill-risk analysis are all covered. However, relative to the server name 'Edmtrain', the event-discovery surface is extremely thin (only events and locations), which is a notable mismatch.

Resources