Skip to main content
Glama

Geoapify

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds crucial behavioral details: snapshot-based (not live), 60-day TTL, decay computed from daily closes (not intraday), and data gaps when no scan occurred. No contradictions.

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 fairly long but dense and well-structured. It front-loads the key question and organizes response fields clearly. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'edge_pp_net' explanation) could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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 lacking an output schema, the description fully explains the response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) with detailed field semantics. It also covers limits (TTL, start date) and interpretation (decay numbers meaning). Complete for this telemetry tool.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds context: days default 14 (clamped 2-30), window default '1wk' with possible values ('24hr', '1wk', '1mo'). This provides meaning 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: edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots. It answers specific questions about edge age and decay, distinguishing it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges (current edges) and polymarket_arbitrage.

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 it (to assess edge freshness vs. decay), implying it is not for current edges or arbitrage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tool names, which would strengthen this dimension.

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

All Geoapify 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

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, entity_profile, compare_entities, and validate_claim, all retrieving entity data. Agents may struggle to choose correctly between them. Likewise, bet_research, polymarket_edges, and polymarket_arbitrage cover similar prediction market territory.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use underscores, but the verb/noun order varies: compare_entities (verb_noun), entity_profile (noun_noun), scan_competitor_ai_presence (verb_noun), bet_research (noun_verb). Some names are overly long (scan_competitor_ai_presence). The pattern is readable but not fully consistent.

Tool Count3/5

With 31 tools, the count is high but not extreme. However, the set covers geospatial, data retrieval, prediction markets, npm scanning, and memory/feedback - too broad for a single server. Many tools feel added without clear justification, making the set feel bloated.

Completeness2/5

The geospatial subset is incomplete (missing elevation, distance matrix, isochrones). The data access tools overlap rather than form a complete API surface (e.g., no entity update/delete). Prediction market tools are numerous but redundant. The server tries to do too much and lacks depth in any area.

Resources