Skip to main content
Glama

Geonet Nz

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?

The description extensively covers behavior beyond annotations: output structure, trend computation, decay calculation, snapshot timing, and limitations (60-day TTL, daily closes). No contradiction with readOnlyHint or other 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 with a purpose statement, output details, and limitations. Each sentence contributes value, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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 comprehensively explains the return fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and their meanings. Limitations and caveats are clearly stated, making the tool's behavior fully transparent.

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 already describes parameters, but the description adds defaults (days=14, window='1wk'), maximum days (30), and context about snapshot families. This adds meaningful value 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 provides edge persistence and decay telemetry, answering 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on historical time-series analysis rather than raw edge data.

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 implies usage for distinguishing between fresh and aged edges, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide direct comparisons to siblings. The context is sufficient for an informed agent.

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

All Geonet Nz 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are deliberately near-identical variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) or have overlapping routing/query purposes (deep_research, validate_claim, discover_tools, suggest_questions). The Polymarket cluster also has five tools that all surface 'edges' or 'arbitrage' with only subtle differences. Only the three GeoNet tools and the memory trio are cleanly distinct.

Naming Consistency3/5

The dominant style is snake_case, and clusters like ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* are internally consistent. However, verb/noun patterns vary widely across the set: some tools begin with verbs (get_quake, scan_dependency, generate_llms_txt), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, volcano_alerts, recent_changes), and some are plain nouns (polymarket_arbitrage). Readable but not a single predictable convention.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the 'heavy' threshold, and the server is named 'Geonet Nz' while only 3 of its 34 tools relate to GeoNet. The overwhelming majority are Pipeworx/data/prediction-market tools, making the server's scope massively broader than its name implies. The count itself is not unreasonable for the actual feature sprawl, but it is inappropriate for the apparent purpose.

Completeness4/5

Taking the real scope as 'general authoritative data research + memory + subscriptions + a little GeoNet', the surface is quite complete: query entry points, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, claim validation, monitoring subscriptions, memory persistence, and feedback are all present. The GeoNet-specific subset is also adequate (get one, list recent, volcano alerts). Minor gaps exist, like no general GeoNet station/well data or subscription editing, but nothing causes dead ends.

Resources