Skip to main content
Glama

Itis

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant detail: explains response fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), computation of trend and decay, data gaps, TTL limits, and that decay is based on daily closes. No contradictions.

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 well-structured: starts with a high-level purpose, then details response fields and limitations. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence provides useful information. Could be slightly more streamlined but still effective.

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 and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the response format thoroughly, covers edge cases (expired opportunities, data gaps), and notes limitations (TTL, snapshot start). The agent has enough information to use the tool correctly.

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 tool description adds default values (14 for days, '1wk' for window), clarifies the max for days (30), and explains the window parameter as snapshot family. This adds value beyond the schema.

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. It answers a specific question ('how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on historical tracking.

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: to understand edge history and distinguish between new and old wide edges. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context implies it is for historical analysis rather than current snapshots.

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

All Itis 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

Several tools occupy overlapping roles: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research/validate_claim all provide grounded answering, and bet_research/polymarket_edges/polymarket_arbitrage all surface betting opportunities. The descriptions are detailed, but the boundaries between routers and research modes are fuzzy enough that an agent could easily select the wrong one. The taxonomy, memory, and subscription clusters are distinct, but they are drowned out by the overlapping meta-tools.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, which provides some visual consistency, but the verb_noun pattern is not consistently applied: search_taxa/get_hierarchy are clean verb_noun, while deep_research, entity_profile, polymarket_edges, and bet_research are noun-ish or reversed patterns. There is good family-level consistency within ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_*, but the overall set mixes conventions and requires reading descriptions to infer what each tool does.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well over the 25-tool threshold and reflects a sprawling multi-domain server spanning taxonomy, structured-data lookup, prediction markets, subscriptions, memory, and AI visibility. Each cluster may be individually reasonable, but as a single MCP surface it is too heavy and forces agents to filter through many irrelevant tools.

Completeness4/5

For the broad data-research and prediction-market purpose, the surface is fairly complete: it covers routing, grounded answers, deep multi-source research, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, entity resolution, subscriptions, alerts, memory, and market edge/fill checks. Minor gaps exist—no direct web-search tool, the beta router adds no current behavior, and some patent endpoints soft-fail—but agents can generally work around them.

Resources