Skip to main content
Glama

Eodhd

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent properties. The description adds significant behavioral context: explains the three-part response (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), meaning of negative edge_pp_net, and limitations like 60-day TTL and daily closes. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is relatively long but well-structured into core question, response details, and limitations. Every sentence adds necessary context, though it could be slightly more concise. Front-loaded with the key question.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully documents the response structure (tracked with time-series, expired with lifespan, snapshot_dates) and limitations (TTL, data gaps, decay method). Comprehensive for a complex tool generating telemetry.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds value by explaining days as lookback (default 14, max 30) and window as 'snapshot family' with examples. Provides context beyond schema, though schema already describes parameters adequately.

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 it provides 'edge persistence and decay telemetry' from daily snapshots, answering a specific question about edge longevity. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on tracking edges over time rather than just listing them.

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 contrasts fresh vs. aged edges to imply use cases, and notes decay is daily not intraday. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternative tools for edge analysis, leaving some guidance implicit.

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

All Eodhd 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

Multiple tool clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route research questions; polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, and bet_research all hunt prediction-market edges; ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence do nearly the same job. The verbose descriptions help, but an agent would still struggle to pick the right tool in these clusters.

Naming Consistency2/5

Everything is snake_case, but there is no coherent pattern: some names are verb_noun (compare_entities, validate_claim), some are bare verbs (remember, forget, recall), some are prefixed by domain (eodhd_*, pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, ai_visibility_*), and the Eodhd prefix clashes with the Pipeworx family. The conventions feel inherited from multiple unrelated codebases rather than a unified design.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is already heavy for most servers, but the real problem is that only 2 tools (eodhd_eod_prices, eodhd_fundamentals) relate to the server's stated purpose. The other 31 span Pipeworx research, Polymarket betting, memory, subscriptions, feedback, llms.txt generation, and npm dependency checking — a massively over-scoped grab bag for a server named 'Eodhd'.

Completeness2/5

For the nominal EODHD domain the surface is severely incomplete: no splits, dividends, options, exchanges list, or other standard EODHD endpoints — just prices and fundamentals. As a general research/data platform it is broad rather than deep, mixing a decent question-answering core with unrelated one-off utilities, so no single coherent lifecycle is fully covered.

Resources