Skip to main content
Glama

Hgnc

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 provides extensive behavioral details beyond the annotations: it describes the output structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]), explains computed fields like trend and decay_pp_per_day, and notes data limitations (60-day TTL, daily closes, not intraday). This fully informs the agent about the tool's behavior.

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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured: it starts with the core question, then details response fields, then limits. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully specifies the return format and fields. It covers tracked opportunities with time-series, expired opportunities with lifespan, and snapshot dates, plus data limits and interpretation notes. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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. The description repeats the defaults and clamping behavior but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Thus baseline score of 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: providing edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots. It distinguishes itself from siblings like polymarket_edges by focusing on the time-based nature of edges, answering 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'

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: when you need to know edge age and decay, noting that a fresh wide edge and an old wide edge are different trades. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the context with sibling tool names gives implicit guidance.

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

All Hgnc 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
Disambiguation3/5

Tools are mostly distinct but several ask_pipeworx variants and research tools overlap in purpose, which could lead to agent confusion. The presence of memory and subscription tools adds unrelated functionality.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent, mixing snake_case with varying verb patterns (ask, get, search, scan, etc.) and no clear convention. Some tools have descriptive phrases (e.g., generate_llms_txt) further breaking consistency.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a coherent server, covering too many disparate domains (genes, data queries, betting, memory) without clear focus. A gene server should have far fewer tools.

Completeness3/5

Gene-related tools are complete for basic queries (search, get, resolve), but the server's main purpose (HGNC) is overshadowed by many unrelated Pipeworx tools, creating a mismatch. The overall surface is broad but lacks domain focus.

Resources