Skip to main content
Glama

Idf Events

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
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context (response fields, limits like 60-day TTL, daily snapshots) without contradicting 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?

Description is well-structured, front-loading purpose, then detailing response fields and limits. Every sentence adds value, but it's slightly verbose for the parameter details.

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?

For a tool with 2 optional parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It explains response fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and limitations (60-day TTL, daily closes).

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?

Input schema covers both parameters (days, window) with descriptions. The description adds meaning: defaults (14 for days, '1wk' for window), clamping (2-30 days), and effect (days on lookback, window on snapshot family).

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 specific questions about edge duration and decay, and distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_edges.

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 the tool (to determine edge age and decay) and contrasts fresh vs old edges. It implicitly distinguishes from polymarket_edges but lacks explicit 'when not to use' or direct comparisons to other siblings.

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

All Idf Events 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

Many tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., three ask_pipeworx variants, multiple Polymarket analysis tools, and several entity-focused tools). Agents may struggle to select the correct tool for tasks like querying data or analyzing prediction markets.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case, and most follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities). A few names like ai_visibility_check are slightly less conventional, but overall the naming is consistent.

Tool Count3/5

With 32 tools covering a broad range of data services, the count is on the high side but still manageable. However, the server name 'Idf Events' is misleading, as only one tool relates to events in Paris.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core workflows for the Pipeworx platform: data querying, research, comparisons, subscriptions, memory, and feedback. Minor gaps exist, but most user needs are addressed.

Resources