Skip to main content
Glama

Manifold

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: snapshot TTL (60 days), data gaps on cache-miss, decay from daily closes (not intraday), and response structure details (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates). 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 every sentence adds value, with clear explanations of response fields and limitations. It could be slightly more concise but remains efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity of telemetry with time-series, trends, and expiration, the description is very complete. It covers limitations (TTL, snapshot gaps, decay from daily closes) and details the response structure despite no output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%. The description adds defaults (days=14, window='1wk'), clamping (days 2-30), defines window families (24hr,1wk,1mo), and explains the role of window in selecting snapshot families, providing meaning 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 the tool provides edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots, distinguishing itself from siblings like polymarket_edges by focusing on time-series trends, first_seen, trend classification, and decay rate. It explicitly answers 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for analyzing edge persistence over time but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like polymarket_edges. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

All Manifold 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
Disambiguation3/5

Tools have distinct purposes but some overlap exists, e.g., multiple ask_pipeworx variants and deep_research could confuse an agent. Prediction market tools are differentiated but not immediately obvious.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently in snake_case but mix verb and noun orders (e.g., 'ai_visibility_check' vs 'ask_pipeworx'). No strict verb_noun pattern throughout.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is on the high side but still reasonable given the broad domain coverage. Some tools could be consolidated without loss.

Completeness4/5

Covers data querying, company research, prediction markets, subscriptions, and memory. Minor gaps like no direct web search but ask_pipeworx substitutes.

Resources