Skip to main content
Glama

Mastodon

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 goes beyond annotations by detailing the response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]), how decay is computed, and limitations (60-day TTL, gaps, intraday vs. daily closes). It fully discloses behavioral traits without contradicting the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and other 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 front-loaded with the purpose and uses a structured format to detail response fields, making it easy to parse. While it is somewhat verbose, every sentence contributes useful information, achieving a good balance between conciseness and completeness.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description fully explains the return fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), edge cases (snapshot gaps, TTL), and limitations. It provides sufficient context for the agent to use the tool effectively, making it complete for this complexity level.

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?

Parameter coverage is 100% in the schema, and the description repeats the parameter explanations with slight additions (e.g., 'snapshot family' for window). Since the schema already provides comprehensive descriptions, the description adds limited extra semantic value, meriting a baseline score of 3.

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' to determine how long an edge has existed and whether it is shrinking. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinctively contrasts fresh vs. old edges, differentiating it from sibling tools like polymarket_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 indirectly explains when to use the tool by contrasting 'a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old wide edge' and implying its use for understanding edge longevity. However, it does not explicitly specify when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving room for improvement.

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

All Mastodon 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between research-oriented tools like ask_pipeworx and deep_research, and between entity_profile and compare_entities. Descriptions help differentiate them, so overall an agent can tell them apart.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent, mixing snake_case (ask_pipeworx, list_subscriptions) and camelCase (bag_research, compare_entities). There is no uniform naming pattern, which can be confusing.

Tool Count2/5

With 35 tools, the set is too large for a server named 'Mastodon'. Only a few tools are actually Mastodon-related (e.g., get_account, get_timeline), while the majority are PipeWorx tools unrelated to the core purpose.

Completeness1/5

As a Mastodon server, the toolset is severely incomplete: it lacks basic social media operations like posting statuses, following/unfollowing, and engaging with content. The name misrepresents the actual capabilities.

Resources