Skip to main content
Glama

Linkedin_ads

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

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description goes beyond by detailing output structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]), limitations (60-day TTL, no intraday), and data semantics. No contradiction with 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?

The description is detailed but efficient, front-loading purpose and then output structure. Every sentence adds value, though it is slightly verbose in explaining the decay concept. Still earns its length.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must fully explain return values. It thoroughly describes tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[] with field details and edge cases (gaps, TTL). Complete for a telemetry tool with moderate complexity.

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 (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by clarifying defaults, max for days (30), and possible window values. It explains 'snapshot family' context, adding value beyond schema definitions.

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: providing 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 from sibling polymarket_edges which likely shows current edges only.

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 assess edge persistence and decay, differentiating fresh vs old edges). It provides context for decision-making but does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives.

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

All Linkedin_ads 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
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes (multiple ask_pipeworx variants, several polymarket tools, and similar research functions). The agent would struggle to pick the right tool among 36, especially with unclear boundaries between some tools.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names lack a consistent pattern. The li_ prefix for LinkedIn tools is isolated; other tools use random prefixes (pipeworx_, polymarket_) or no prefix at all (ask_pipeworx, bet_research). Mix of verb_noun and noun structures.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools for a server named 'Linkedin_ads' is excessive. Only 5 tools are actually LinkedIn ads-related; the rest are unrelated, making the server feel bloated and unfocused. A focused server would have 5-10 tools.

Completeness2/5

For the stated LinkedIn ads domain, the tool set is incomplete: missing create/update/delete campaigns, budget management, and targeting. While the server includes many other data tools, its advertised purpose is poorly served.

Resources