Skip to main content
Glama

Google_ads

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description extensively discloses behavior: it computes trend and decay, explains negative values, details expired opportunities, and notes snapshot writing conditions and TTL. This goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), providing clear operational expectations.

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 detailed but efficiently structured, starting with a core question then expanding. The use of sub-sections (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) is clear. A minor redundancy exists (explaining both in text and parentheses), but overall it is well-organized and not overly verbose.

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 fully explains the response structure and fields, including meanings of trend values and decay calculation. It also notes limitations like TTL and snapshot gaps. This provides complete guidance for an agent to use the tool effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

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

The input schema already describes both parameters (days, window) with defaults. The description adds value by specifying clamp ranges (2-30 days), default values (14, '1wk'), and the meaning of the window parameter ('snapshot family'). It also explains how days affects history depth.

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 identifies the tool as providing edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots. It answers a specific question ('how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges which likely provide current 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 explains when to use this tool—analyzing edge longevity and decay—and gives context that a 3-week-old wide edge is different from a fresh one. It mentions limits (60-day TTL, snapshot availability) but does not explicitly specify when not to use or name alternative tools.

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

All Google_ads 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The five gads_* tools are distinct, but the majority of the surface is a sprawling research/meta toolkit with many overlapping retrieval entry points: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions, validate_claim, entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, and search_within all cover overlapping information-query territory. An agent could easily misroute a question among the ask_pipeworx variants or between the general-query and company-profile tools.

Naming Consistency3/5

Domain prefixes like gads_, polymarket_, and ask_pipeworx_ provide some structure, but naming conventions are mixed: gads_list_campaigns and list_subscriptions follow verb_noun, while entity_profile, ai_visibility_check, remember, and generate_llms_txt do not. The names are readable and grouped by prefix, but they do not form one consistent pattern.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools this is a large surface, and the count becomes even more problematic because the server is named Google_ads while only 5 of the 36 tools relate to Google Ads. The other 31 tools are a broad Pipeworx data-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription utility set, which makes the server feel bloated and mis-scoped for its advertised purpose.

Completeness2/5

As a Google Ads server, the surface is read-only and incomplete: it can list campaigns and ad groups, get campaign details, pull metrics, and run GAQL, but it cannot create, update, or delete campaigns, manage budgets and bids, or handle keywords, audiences, or ad creatives. The many unrelated data-research tools do not address these core Google Ads management gaps.

Resources