Skip to main content
Glama

Entertainment Feeds

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description goes far beyond, detailing the three model families, the 24h-move warning, the diagnostics for empty segments, and caching behavior ('Cached 1h at the KV level'). It provides transparency on how edges are computed and why certain opportunities might be suppressed.

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 thorough but verbose, using dense paragraphs with many embedded explanations. While it is well-structured with sections and key terms in uppercase, some sentences could be streamlined. The front-loading of purpose and then detailed breakdown is effective, but the overall length might overwhelm a quick scan.

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 (9 parameters, no output schema, nested structures), the description is remarkably complete. It outlines the response structure (by_segment, fed_candidates, _diagnostics), explains each segment's methodology, and describes caching, tradeable-edge filters, and edge cases (Fed bets, placeholder slugs). No gaps remain for an agent to understand what the tool returns and how to use it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. For example, it explains that min_kelly filters 'opportunities that are too small to bet sensibly even if the edge is large' and that slippage_pp is 'subtracted from raw |edge| before ranking and Kelly sizing.' It also clarifies interactions like min_partition_leg_kelly applying to per-leg Kelly for partitions.

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: 'Scan top Polymarket markets and return opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price.' It specifies the resource (Polymarket markets), the action (scan and return), and the unique value (discovering opportunities without paging). It distinguishes itself from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage by detailing its internal segments and tradeable-edge knobs.

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 explicitly frames the use case as 'what should I bet on today' and explains how knobs (min_liquidity, max_spread_pp) filter opportunities. It also notes that Fed bets are excluded from ranking. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like polymarket_edge_tracker or polymarket_arbitrage, leaving some ambiguity about when to prefer this tool over those.

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

All Entertainment Feeds 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

While most tools have distinct purposes, there is notable overlap between the ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and deep_research. Similarly, bet_research and polymarket_edges both analyze betting opportunities. These overlapping tools can cause confusion for an agent.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow a snake_case pattern, but the verbs used are highly varied (ask_, bet_, compare_, deep_, discover_, entity_, fetch_, forget_, generate_, list_, pipeworx_, polymarket_, read_, recall_, recent_, remember_, resolve_, scan_, search_, subscribe_, suggest_, unsubscribe_, validate_). This lack of a consistent verb_noun pattern makes it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for an 'Entertainment Feeds' server. The majority of tools are unrelated to entertainment (e.g., SEC filings, FDA drugs, FRED data, Polymarket betting). Many of these should belong to a separate 'data-access' server, making the scope unwieldy and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

For an entertainment feeds server, the set is incomplete. It can list and read curated feeds and fetch arbitrary RSS, but lacks tools for managing subscriptions to those feeds, searching across feeds, or creating feeds. The inclusion of many non-entertainment tools doesn't compensate for these gaps.

Resources