Skip to main content
Glama

Gemini Crypto

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and data limitations (snapshot gaps, decay computation). No contradictions found.

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 verbose but well-structured with sections (Args, Response, Limits). Each sentence adds value, though some redundancy could be trimmed. It front-loads the key purpose.

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 fully explains the return values (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) with detailed fields. It also covers limitations (TTL, data gaps) and edge cases. This is comprehensive.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with full coverage. The description adds defaults (days=14, window='1wk') and clarifies the 'window' parameter as a snapshot family with options. This adds context beyond the schema.

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: providing edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on time-series analysis and trend detection.

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 the tool (e.g., to assess edge longevity vs. freshness) and includes limitations (60-day TTL, daily close decay). It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer usage.

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

All Gemini Crypto 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools serve overlapping research purposes (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, entity_profile, compare_entities), which could confuse an agent. However, descriptions help differentiate them by use case (single vs multi-part, grounded vs standard, etc.). Some overlap remains.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mix patterns: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, bet_research), others are noun_phrase (price_feed, recent_alerts) or adjective_noun (ticker_v2). No strong naming convention, but all use snake_case consistently, making them readable.

Tool Count3/5

40 tools is on the high side for a single server, covering both Gemini exchange data and Pipeworx's broad knowledge tools. While each tool serves a purpose, the scope feels broad, and some tools could be separated into dedicated servers.

Completeness4/5

The Gemini exchange tools cover essential read-only data (order book, candles, ticker, trades), but lack order placement, likely intentionally. The Pipeworx tools provide extensive research capabilities across many domains, leaving few gaps for the stated purposes.

Resources