Skip to main content
Glama

Elife

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Polymarket Edges

polymarket_edges
Read-onlyIdempotent

Scan top Polymarket markets and return opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price. Built for "what should I bet on today" — agents discover opportunities without paging hundreds of markets. FIVE MODEL FAMILIES grouped into three response segments under by_segment: (1) MODEL_DRIVEN — crypto_price (lognormal barrier from 90d FRED log-returns) and news_momentum (GDELT 7d/21d article-volume ratio, soft signal w/ halved Kelly). (2) STRUCTURAL_ARBITRAGE — partition_overround on mutually-exclusive events; per-leg favorite-longshot bias correction with per-sport α (tennis 1.02, soccer 1.10, MMA 1.15, default 1.0); placeholder-slug filter drops will-person-X / will-team-Y / will-manager-Z / will-someone-else- backstops; partitions with >20% placeholder fraction skipped entirely. (3) CONCENTRATED_LONGSHOT — basket trade when one leg ≥75% AND ≥2 longshots ≤8% AND portfolio return ≥25:1; rare-by-design (gates relaxed Run 8 from prior 85%/5%/50:1). EVERY OPPORTUNITY carries edge_pp_net (after slippage), kelly_fraction + kelly_fraction_half (capped at 0.25), market.liquidity, market.spread_pp, market.volume, plus a 24h-move warning ("Market moved X.Xpp in 24h") when the recent move alone exceeds the edge — your edge may already be in the price. TRADEABLE-EDGE KNOBS: min_liquidity / max_spread_pp drop opportunities where edge isn't realizable; min_partition_leg_kelly filters partitions by best per-leg Kelly. RESPONSE TOP-LEVEL: by_segment{model_driven,structural_arbitrage,concentrated_longshot}, fed_candidates/fed_note (Fed bets surface here, excluded from ranking — 1m-T vs EFFR signal is unreliable at meeting-month horizons without paid OIS/SOFR-futures data), and _diagnostics{concentrated_longshot:{...funnel counters},category_counts,filter_skips} so callers can see WHY a segment is empty (top-N stale, all candidates failed gates, knob dropped them). Cached 1h at the KV level keyed on all knobs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoTop N edges to return after ranking. Default 10, max 25.
windowNoPolymarket volume window to filter markets. Default 1wk.
min_kellyNoMinimum half-Kelly fraction (as decimal, e.g. 0.005 = 0.5% of bankroll) to include single-leg opportunities. Default 0 (no filter). Skips opportunities that are too small to bet sensibly even if the edge is large.
min_edge_ppNoMinimum |edge| in percentage points to include (default 0.5). Edge is evaluated NET of slippage.
slippage_ppNoAssumed execution slippage in percentage points per leg (default 0.3). Subtracted from raw |edge| before ranking and Kelly sizing. Polymarket has zero trading fees as of 2024 but bid/ask + thin depth typically eats 20-50bp per trade. Bump for very thin partitions; drop to 0 if you have a smarter fill model.
max_spread_ppNoTradeable-edge filter. Maximum bid/ask spread in percentage points on the representative market. Default null (no filter). Set to 2 to require tight books — anything wider eats most plausible edges.
min_liquidityNoTradeable-edge filter. Minimum $ liquidity on the representative market (or for partition_overround, on at least one top_leg). Default 0 (no filter). Set to 5000 to drop thin-book opportunities where executing the edge would walk the book past breakeven.
category_filterNoComma-separated list to restrict the output: "model_driven" (crypto_price + news_momentum), "structural_arbitrage" (partition_overround), "concentrated_longshot". Combine like "model_driven,structural_arbitrage". Default: all.
min_partition_leg_kellyNoMinimum BEST per-leg half-Kelly fraction across a partition_overround opportunity's top_legs (or longshot_basket legs). Default 0 (no filter). Partition arbs always return kelly_fraction_half=0 at the parent level by design (basket trades don't compose to single-leg Kelly), so min_kelly never filters them — this knob applies to the per-leg Kelly inside top_legs instead. Use to suppress thin partitions whose individual leg edges aren't worth the per-leg slippage cost.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. Beyond that, the description adds rich behavioral context: caching duration and keying, Fed bet exclusion rationale, the fact that partition_overround parent-level kelly_fraction_half is always 0, and diagnostic output for empty segments. There are 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is thorough but lengthy (multiple paragraphs). It is well-structured with segments and bullet points, but could be more concise. Every sentence adds value, but the overall length makes it less ideal for quick scanning.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, 3 model families, diagnostic feedback) and lack of output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains top-level response structure (by_segment, diagnostics, fed_candidates), edge calculation details, and filtering knobs. All important aspects are covered.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions 'tradeable-edge knobs' collectively but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. No new semantics for individual parameters.

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 verb and resource: 'Scan top Polymarket markets and return opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price.' It explicitly targets the 'what should I bet on today' use case, distinguishing it from generic market listing tools. Though sibling differentiation could be more explicit, the unique methodology (three segments, edge calculation) makes its role unmistakable.

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 usage context: 'Built for what should I bet on today — agents discover opportunities without paging hundreds of markets.' It includes practical guidance like 'Fed bets excluded from ranking' and notes caching behavior ('Cached 1h at the KV level'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with siblings, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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

All Elife 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are differentiated by reliability mode; entity_profile vs compare_entities serve single vs multi-entity; and memorization, subscription, and search tools occupy separate operational niches. No two tools could be easily confused.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern. Some use verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, validate_claim), others are noun phrases (polymarket_arbitrage, ai_visibility_check), and some mix verb+noun with underscores inconsistently (generate_llms_txt, scan_competitor_ai_presence). This lack of uniformity makes the surface harder to navigate.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is borderline high. The server spans multiple domains (data query, prediction markets, eLife, memory, subscriptions), and each domain gets several tools, making the overall surface feel bloated. While individual tools are justified, the total count strains discoverability and hints at scope creep.

Completeness2/5

The tool set is incomplete relative to its stated breadth. For a server named 'Elife', only 3 tools actually serve eLife; the rest are dominated by Pipeworx and Polymarket. Within the query/data domain, coverage is deep but lacks write/modify tools. Prediction market analysis lacks execution tools (no order placement). This leaves clear gaps for agents that need to act on the data.

Resources