Skip to main content
Glama

Iso

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context such as data computed from daily closes (not intraday), snapshot TTL (60 days), and gaps indicating no scans, enhancing transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is detailed but somewhat lengthy, with multiple technical details integrated into a single paragraph. It is front-loaded with the main purpose but becomes dense with response structure, slightly reducing conciseness.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) and limitations (TTL, gaps). It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand data and usage.

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?

Schema covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining 'days' as lookback with default/max and 'window' as snapshot family, and details about snapshot generation on cache-miss.

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 it provides edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots, answering specific questions about edge age and decay. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'polymarket_edges' by focusing on historical trends.

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 implicitly conveys when to use it (to assess edge persistence) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools helps differentiate.

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

All Iso 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Tools are mostly distinct but there is some overlap among lookup tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile) and among Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage). Agents might occasionally struggle to choose the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: some use verb_noun snake_case (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), some are single words (forget, recall, remember), and others are noun-based (compliance_catalog, entity_profile). No consistent pattern.

Tool Count1/5

With 34 tools, the count is too high for a server named 'ISO Standards'. The majority of tools are unrelated to ISO standards (e.g., Polymarket, memory, web scraping), making the scope highly inappropriate.

Completeness1/5

As an ISO standards server, the tool set is severely incomplete. Only 4-5 tools (search_standards, get_standard, compliance_catalog, open_data_files) actually deal with ISO standards. Essential operations like comparing standards or browsing revisions are missing.

Resources