Skip to main content
Glama

Linear

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 annotations: data source (daily snapshots), limits (60-day TTL, gaps explained), decay computation method, and full response structure. This enriches the agent's understanding beyond the readOnly and idempotent hints.

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 fairly long but well-structured, starting with purpose, then parameters, then response format, then limitations. It packs useful information without being overly verbose. Minor improvement possible by trimming redundant phrasing.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers all aspects: input usage, response structure with fields explained, and limitations. No gaps identified.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some extra context (e.g., default lookback of 14 days, snapshots written on cache-miss) but does not significantly alter parameter semantics. The schema already provides adequate details.

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 provides edge persistence and decay telemetry, answering 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on historical tracking rather than current 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 usage context (fresh vs. old edges, time-series analysis) and implicitly guides when to use this tool over siblings. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear enough.

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

All Linear 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially within their domains (e.g., Polymarket tools are well-separated). However, a few tools like ask_pipeworx, deep_research, and suggest_questions could cause minor confusion, as they all deal with querying data.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tools from the same service use consistent prefixes (linear_, polymarket_, pipeworx_), but the overall naming style is mixed: some are verb_noun (linear_create_issue), some are noun_verb (bet_research), and some are single words (remember). This inconsistency reduces predictability.

Tool Count3/5

With 35 tools, the server covers a broad range of functionality (data query, prediction markets, memory, etc.). While not excessive, the count is on the higher side, and the server name 'Linear' suggests a narrower focus, which may mislead expectations.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core data querying, research, entity profiles, prediction market analysis, and memory operations comprehensively. Minor gaps exist (e.g., limited Linear CRUD), but the overall surface feels complete for its intended use as a data assistant.

Resources