Skip to main content
Glama

Entso E

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 already mark it read-only and idempotent. The description adds rich details: response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), time-series behavior, and limits (60-day TTL, non-intraday decay). No contradictions.

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 and front-loaded but somewhat verbose. It includes necessary details without redundancy, earning a slightly above-average score.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the response fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and limits. It covers all aspects needed for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 repeats the same parameter info (days, window) without adding new 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 the tool's purpose: tracking edge persistence and decay from daily snapshots. It distinguishes from siblings like polymarket_edges by focusing on historical telemetry.

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 implicit usage context by contrasting fresh vs. old edges, aiding when to use. However, it lacks explicit comparison to alternative tools like polymarket_edges or polymarket_arbitrage.

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

All Entso E 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The ENTSO-E energy tools are clearly distinct, but the Pipeworx half contains overlapping query modes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, and ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research/validate_claim all route natural-language questions to the same underlying catalog. The Polymarket tools also blur edge detection, arbitrage, fill-risk, and persistence tracking, so an agent can easily select the wrong one.

Naming Consistency2/5

The five ENTSO-E tools use a clean snake_case noun pattern, but the rest mix brand verbs (ask_pipeworx, bet_research), bare memory verbs (remember, recall, forget), and polymorphic prefixes (polymarket_*), with inconsistent suffixes like beta, grounded, and kalshi_spread. There is no server-wide predictable naming convention.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is too many for the apparent scope, and the server name promises ENTSO-E while only 5 of 36 tools serve that domain. Even viewed as a general data utility, the count is heavy and includes duplicate query modes, though individual clusters do have some purpose.

Completeness3/5

For an ENTSO-E server, the five energy tools cover the basics (generation, load, price, flow, capacity) but omit common datasets like generation forecasts, balancing/imbalance prices, and outages. The unrelated Pipeworx tools add broad research, memory, and subscription coverage, but the overall surface feels like a general-purpose assistant with an energy add-on rather than a complete energy domain.

Resources