Skip to main content
Glama

Energy Charts

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 indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, and the description does not contradict these. It adds rich behavioral context: reads snapshots, returns time-series, computes trends and decay, includes expired opportunities, and documents limits (60-day TTL, daily closes, not intraday).

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses bold for key terms and a list-like structure for response fields, making it scannable. While slightly long, every sentence provides useful information.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no enums, the description thoroughly explains the return structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) and limitations. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool without confusion.

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% with both parameters described. The description repeats defaults but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides sufficient parameter semantics.

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: providing edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots. It answers a specific question about how long an edge has existed and whether it's shrinking, distinguishing it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges (current 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 explains the value of using this tool (e.g., a 3-week-old wide edge is different from a fresh one) and implies when to choose it over alternatives. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is clear enough for an AI agent to infer appropriate usage.

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

All Energy Charts 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, which all perform similar data retrieval. The multiple Polymarket tools also overlap in focus, making it unclear which to use for a given task.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent: some use 'ask_', 'polymarket_', 'pipeworx_', while others like 'electricity_price', 'installed_power', and 'remember' follow no coherent pattern. Conventions are mixed and unpredictable.

Tool Count2/5

With 35 tools, the server is over-scoped for an 'Energy Charts' purpose. Only 5-6 tools are directly energy-related; the rest are a miscellany of data services, prediction markets, and memory functions, which is excessive and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

The server lacks essential energy analysis tools like forecast, emission factors, or capacity utilization, yet includes many unrelated tools (e.g., betting, memory). This creates significant gaps for the stated domain.

Resources