Skip to main content
Glama

Gong

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral detail: explains the returned structure (tracked with time-series, trend, decay; expired with lifespan; snapshot dates), notes that gaps indicate no scan, and discloses limits (60-day TTL, decay from daily closes). There is 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 front-loaded with purpose, then details in a structured format: a question-answer, args, response fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), and limitations. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds information. Minor room for tightening, but overall well-organized.

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 tool has only two parameters and no output schema, yet the description thoroughly explains the output structure (tracked objects with time-series, trends, decay; expired objects with lifespan; snapshot dates) and limitations (TTL, daily vs. intraday). It leaves no major gaps for an agent to understand tool usage and expected results.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well (lookback days with clamp, window family with options). The description adds defaults and some context (e.g., window as 'snapshot family'), but this mostly duplicates the schema. Hence, the description does not add substantial value beyond what the schema provides.

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 built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots.' It answers the specific question 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?', uses a specific verb (tracks, answers), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'polymarket_edges' by focusing on persistence and decay rather than just 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 when to use: when needing to understand edge persistence (fresh vs. old wide edges). It provides context about decay numbers being from daily closes (not intraday), which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools, though siblings are available in the context.

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

All Gong 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes due to detailed descriptions, but there is potential confusion among the many Polymarket and pipeworx-related tools. The Gong-specific tools are clearly separated.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming conventions are mixed: some use snake_case, others camelCase, and there is inconsistency between groups (e.g., gong_* vs. polymarket_*). However, within each subgroup, naming is consistent.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is high for coherence. The server covers multiple domains (Gong calls, data research, betting), leading to an overloaded toolset that could be streamlined into fewer, more general tools.

Completeness4/5

The toolset is comprehensive for its intended use cases, covering Gong call management, a wide array of data lookups, and Polymarket betting analysis. Minor gaps exist, such as limited CRM features beyond calls.

Resources