Skip to main content
Glama

Met No

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: snapshots are written on cache-miss, gaps mean no scan, 60-day TTL limits history depth, and decay uses daily closes not intraday. This provides valuable insight beyond structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but every sentence carries information, structured with 'Args:', 'RESPONSE:', and 'LIMITS:' sections. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then details, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully documents the response structure including tracked[], expired[], and snapshot_dates[] with field semantics. It also covers limitations, making it complete for an agent to understand the tool's behavior without additional documentation.

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, but the description adds meaning by explaining days has a default and max, and window defines the snapshot family. It clarifies each parameter's role in the telemetry context, going 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 explicitly states its function: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots' and answers a precise question ('how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling polymarket_edges by focusing on historical persistence rather than current edge values.

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?

Clearly conveys when to use by explaining that it provides edge history and decay analysis, while implying current edges are elsewhere. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

All Met No 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among closely related ones (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research; multiple Polymarket tools). Descriptions are detailed enough to differentiate, but an agent might still misselect on subtle differences.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names consistently use lowercase with underscores, but no strong verb_noun pattern. Some are noun-based (airquality, nowcast), others verb-based (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities). This is readable but not perfectly predictable.

Tool Count4/5

35 tools is high but justified by the server's broad scope (data queries, betting analysis, weather, memory, subscriptions). The number feels appropriate given the comprehensive functionality described.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers an impressively wide range of capabilities: data querying with multiple modes, entity profiling, comparisons, search, betting analysis, weather, memory, subscriptions, and feedback. Missing features (e.g., updating memories) are minor; the surface is remarkably complete.

Resources