Skip to main content
Glama

Figma

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. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readonly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: history bounded by 60-day TTL, decay from daily closes (not intraday), snapshot gaps when no scan occurred. This goes beyond 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: purpose first, then output fields, then limitations. Every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise, but overall it is earned.

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 details the response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and edge computation nuances. It also covers input, output, limitations, and data sources, making it fully informative.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description restates parameter defaults and meaning but does not add new meaning beyond the schema descriptions. It is adequate but not exceptional.

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 provides 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry' and answers a specific question about edge duration and trend. It uses specific verbs ('track', 'answers') and resource ('edge persistence/decay'). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'polymarket_edges' by focusing on time-series analysis.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use by contrasting fresh vs old edges, but it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools among siblings. Usage guidance is present but lacks exclusions or direct comparison.

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

All Figma 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

Many tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded), and the set mixes Figma-specific tools with a large library of data-lookup tools, making it hard for an agent to distinguish when to use which.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: snake_case (ask_pipeworx, deep_research), camelCase (get_me, get_file), and mixed underscores (list_comments). There is no consistent pattern across the tool set.

Tool Count1/5

The server is named 'Figma' but has 36 tools, only 5 of which are Figma-related. The remaining 31 are Pipeworx data tools, indicating a severe scope mismatch and unnecessary bloat for a Figma server.

Completeness1/5

The Figma-specific tools lack essential CRUD operations (e.g., no create, update, or delete for files or nodes). The Pipeworx tools, while extensive, are irrelevant to Figma, so the server is severely incomplete for its stated purpose.

Resources