Skip to main content
Glama

Fcc Ecfs

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false. Description adds rich behavioral details: response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), meaning of fields (trend values, decay_pp_per_day absolute with sign convention), and limits (60-day TTL, snapshot start, daily closes vs intraday). No contradiction.

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?

Description is long but efficient. Front-loads key question and provides detailed response structure. Slightly verbose in response field explanations but no wasted sentences. Could be more structured 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?

No output schema, so description must explain return values. It thoroughly describes tracked[], expired[], and snapshot_dates[] with field meanings and edge cases (gaps indicate no scan). Complete given tool complexity.

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%. The description adds minimal extra: confirms defaults and max, but schema already documents both parameters fully. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states it provides 'edge persistence and decay telemetry' and answers a specific question about edge age and shrinkage. It distinguishes from sibling polymarket_edges by focusing on time-series and decay, not just current edges.

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?

Explicitly answers 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' and contrasts fresh vs old edges. Gives a clear use case (different trades for same width at different ages). Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is sufficient. Could mention alternatives like polymarket_edges for current snapshot only.

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

All Fcc Ecfs 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
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap in purpose, such as multiple query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and multiple prediction market analysis tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges). An agent would struggle to select the appropriate tool due to ambiguous distinctions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are a mix of styles: some follow verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, forget), others use noun_verb (ecfs_docket_filings), and many are short or compound (bet_research, entity_profile). While the ecfs- prefix tools are consistent, the overall set lacks a uniform pattern.

Tool Count2/5

With 35 tools, the count is excessive for a server named after FCC ECFS, as only 4 tools are directly relevant to that domain. The inclusion of many general-purpose data tools makes the set feel bloated and misaligned with the server's apparent scope.

Completeness3/5

For the FCC ECFS domain, the tool set is incomplete (only 4 tools, lacking submission or deletion capabilities). However, as a general-purpose data query server, it covers many sources (SEC, FDA, patents, etc.). The name mismatch hurts the perceived completeness.

Resources