Skip to main content
Glama

Gmail

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
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, idempotent) by detailing the response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]), computation of trends and decay, explanation of data gaps, and limitations. No contradiction with 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 well-structured with a clear front-loaded purpose, followed by args and response details. It is somewhat verbose due to the lack of output schema, but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, 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?

The description is comprehensive for a telemetry tool with no output schema. It explains the data source, computation, response fields, and limitations. The agent gets a complete picture of what to expect.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters already described. The description restates the parameters slightly (days lookback, window family) but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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' and answers the specific question 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like polymarket_edges by focusing on historical tracking and decay analysis.

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 implicitly guides usage by explaining the context (fresh vs old edges) and providing limitations (TTL, start date). It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, but the clear purpose and limitations are sufficient for an agent to decide.

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

All Gmail 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There is significant overlap among tools, particularly within the Pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and the Polymarket family (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread). These tools have similar purposes, making it hard for an agent to distinguish them at a glance. The Gmail tools are a small, distinct cluster, but the overall set is confusing.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case, but the verb_noun pattern is inconsistent. Many start with verbs (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, discover_tools, etc.), but some use noun_verb (bet_research), noun_noun (entity_profile), or adjective_noun (deep_research). This mixed pattern reduces predictability.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the count is high, but the server name 'Gmail' suggests a focused email service. Only 5 tools are Gmail-related, while the rest cover a vast, unrelated domain (Pipeworx, Polymarket, etc.). This mismatch makes the tool count inappropriate for the server's apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the Gmail domain, the tool surface is incomplete (e.g., missing delete, archive, modify labels). For the broader Pipeworx/Polymarket domain, the tools are extensive but lack clarity in coverage. The server attempts to cover too many domains without sufficient depth in any, leading to notable gaps.

Resources