Skip to main content
Glama

genderize

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Given the annotations already mark the operation as read-only and idempotent, the description adds considerable extra behavioral detail: 60-day TTL history limit, snapshots written on cache-miss, gaps meaning no scan, and decay computed from daily closes rather than intraday. This goes well beyond the annotations and prepares the user for data freshness and edge cases.

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 lengthy but well-structured with clear ARGS/RESPONSE/LIMITS sections. Every sentence conveys operational necessity, though the opening uses a rhetorical flourish that could be trimmed. The structure helps an agent parse it efficiently.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully documents the return structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), including field meanings and computation logic. It also covers limitations and data provenance. 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.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description restates defaults and the 'window' concept but adds no meaningful new detail; in fact, it slightly conflicts with the schema by saying 'max 30' while the schema says 'clamp 2-30'.

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 a specific function: edge persistence and decay telemetry formed from daily polymarket_edges snapshots. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the temporal dimension of edges rather than just current edge values, answering 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'.

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 by contrasting fresh vs. old edges and stating the questions it answers. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., polymarket_edges) or give exclusion criteria, so it falls just short of an explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use directive.

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

All genderize 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools route the same style of query to the same Pipeworx catalog: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all overlap in purpose, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx. The prediction-market tools also blur together, with bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, and polymarket_fill_risk all covering overlapping analysis territory.

Naming Consistency3/5

The tools are consistently lowercase snake_case, but the naming convention is mixed: some are verb_noun (predict_gender, generate_llms_txt), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts), some are bare verbs (remember, forget), and many share domain prefixes like ask_pipeworx or polymarket_. It is readable, but there is no single predictable pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold where the surface becomes hard to navigate. More importantly, the count does not match the server's apparent genderize identity: the vast majority of tools are unrelated Pipeworx research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription utilities bolted onto a two-tool gender-prediction core.

Completeness3/5

As a broad research assistant, the set is substantial: it covers question routing, grounded verification, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, change feeds, memory, and subscriptions. However, the actual genderize domain is thin—just two prediction tools with no batch, supported-country, or accuracy endpoints—and several unrelated capabilities feel bolted on, making coverage uneven.

Resources