Skip to main content
Glama

Imf Portwatch

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: reads from daily snapshots, decay computed from daily closes (not intraday), history bounded by 60-day TTL, and snapshot gaps explained. No contradiction with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then response fields and limits. Some redundancy (limits paragraph), but overall well-structured. Slightly verbose but necessary for output semantics.

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, description fully explains response fields (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) and their semantics. Covers all relevant context for a read-only telemetry tool.

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 already covers both parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no new parameter details beyond defaults and examples already present in schema. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states the tool's purpose: edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots. Distinguishes from sibling 'polymarket_edges' by focusing on time-series analysis rather than raw snapshots.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use (e.g., comparing fresh vs aging edges) and hints at limitations (60-day TTL, snapshot gaps). However, does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions.

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

All Imf Portwatch 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear distinct purposes, but the three ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) are very similar, and there is some overlap between bet_research and polymarket_edges. Overall, the majority are well-differentiated.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern with only minor deviations (e.g., 'chokepoints_list' vs 'chokepoint_daily_traffic'). The naming convention is predictable and clear.

Tool Count2/5

At 37 tools, the surface is overly large for a focused server. Many tools are meta-tools that could have been consolidated, and the count exceeds the recommended range (25+), making it feel heavy and unwieldy.

Completeness5/5

The server covers maritime chokepoints comprehensively (list, status, daily, compare, disruptions), and the Pipeworx-based tools provide broad coverage across financial, drug, prediction market, and general query domains. There are no obvious gaps for the stated scope.

Resources