Skip to main content
Glama

Epa Emissions

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (read only, idempotent), the description details response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), trend types, decay calculation, and data gaps. It explains negative edge_pp_net meaning and snapshot writing triggers. 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 dense but well-structured: core question first, then args, then response format, then limitations. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more organized with bullet points.

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 explains the response content, including edge time-series, trend and decay metrics, expired opportunities with lifespan, and snapshot dates. It covers limitations and data availability, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 the description adds defaults (days=14, window='1wk'), clamps (days max 30), and explains window values (24hr, 1wk, 1mo). This adds meaning beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like polymarket_edges by focusing on historical time series and decay analysis.

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 when to use (to assess edge persistence and decay) and provides limits (60-day TTL, not intraday). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context implies current edges are better served by the sibling polymarket_edges tool.

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

All Epa Emissions 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
Disambiguation3/5

The tool set contains multiple groups with overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research for data queries, multiple Polymarket tools, and memory tools). However, detailed descriptions help differentiate them, so ambiguity is moderate but not severe.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools follow verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), others use domain-prefixed noun_verb (ghg_emissions_by_sector, polymarket_arbitrage). This mix, combined with a server name that doesn't match the tool domain, makes the naming pattern unclear.

Tool Count1/5

With 35 tools, the server is overloaded, especially given its name 'Epa Emissions' which suggests a narrow focus. Only 5 tools (ghg_*, tri_*) are related to emissions; the rest are unrelated, making the count inappropriate for the server's assumed purpose.

Completeness2/5

For an EPA/emissions server, the tool set is incomplete: it lacks other emissions data (e.g., air quality, water quality, enforcement). The inclusion of many unrelated tools (e.g., Polymarket, memory) does not compensate for missing core emissions coverage.

Resources