Skip to main content
Glama

flood

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations, which already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. It adds critical behavioral details: response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]), data source (snapshots on cache-miss), limitations (60-day TTL, gaps due to no scans), and computation basis (daily closes of edge_pp_net, not intraday).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is long but highly structured: it opens with the core purpose, then clearly labels Args, RESPONSE, and LIMITS. Every sentence contributes valuable information—no filler. The format is easy to scan and front-loaded with the main question it answers.

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 comprehensively covers return fields (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) with field-level details (e.g., trend options, decay calculation). It also covers data availability (snapshot gaps, TTL) and precision caveats (daily closes, not intraday). This is complete for a telemetry tool of this 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining 'days' as lookback with defaults and limits, and 'window' as a snapshot family (e.g., 24hr, 1wk, 1mo) with a default. This clarifies semantics beyond the schema, though much is already in the parameter 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 the tool's purpose: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots.' It answers a specific question ('how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?') and distinguishes itself from siblings like polymarket_edges (which likely provides current edges) by focusing on temporal tracking and decay.

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 strong contextual guidance: it explains that this tool is for understanding edge persistence over time (e.g., 'a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old wide edge are different trades'). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the context makes it clear when to use this vs. a current-edge tool.

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

All flood 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

Several tool clusters have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer factual questions; polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, and polymarket_kalshi_spread all analyze prediction-market opportunities; discover_tools and suggest_questions both serve as meta-tool onboarding. An agent could easily pick the wrong variant.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case, but naming patterns are mixed: some are verb_noun (get_flood_forecast, list_subscriptions), some are noun-centric (entity_profile, bet_research), some are bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), and some use long descriptive phrases (ask_pipeworx_grounded, polymarket_kalshi_spread). It is readable but lacks a single predictable convention.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is heavy for a server whose apparent core is flood forecasting — only 2 of 33 tools (get_flood_forecast, get_river_discharge) relate to flooding. The bulk is a sprawling Pipeworx data-access, prediction-market, and memory layer, making the surface feel overstuffed and off-topic relative to the server name.

Completeness2/5

If the intended domain is flood data, the surface is severely incomplete: only forecast and discharge lookups exist, with no historical flood events, alert subscriptions, mapping, or severity-warning tools. If instead the domain is meant to be Pipeworx-style data research, the surface is broad but still has gaps (no direct SEC filing text retrieval, no clear update/delete lifecycle for many resources). Either way, the purpose is unclear and coverage is mismatched.

Resources