Skip to main content
Glama

Metmuseum

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

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description extensively discloses behavioral traits: it is read-only (snapshot-based), idempotent (querying same params yields same result), and non-destructive. It also reveals limitations like the 60-day snapshot TTL and that decay values are from daily closes, not intraday. This goes well beyond the annotations, which only hint at safety.

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 well-structured with front-loaded purpose and clear sections for args and response. However, it is verbose, detailing the entire response structure in prose. In the absence of an output schema, this is justified, but a more concise presentation could improve readability without losing information.

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 the tool and the lack of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It describes every field in the response (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) with their subfields and meanings, and covers limitations like TTL and data sources. No critical information is missing for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (days and window), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds minimal new semantic value: it mentions default and max for days, and that window refers to snapshot family, but the schema already includes these details. Thus, the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 uses an analogy to contrast fresh vs old edges, making the intent unmistakable. The description also distinguishes it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on time-series behavior.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives such as polymarket_edges or polymarket_arbitrage. It mentions that it uses snapshots from polymarket_edges, but provides no direct comparison or exclusion criteria. Users must infer usage from the tool's specific purpose.

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

All Metmuseum 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The server mixes two Met-specific tools (get_artwork, search_artworks) with a large set of generic Pipeworx tools (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, etc.), making it unclear which tools actually relate to the Met museum. Agents will struggle to distinguish the domain-specific tools from the general data tools.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern: Met-specific tools use get_/search_/list_ prefixes, while Pipeworx tools use diverse patterns (ask_, bet_, compare_, discover_) and some use underscores while others lack verbs. The inconsistency increases cognitive load.

Tool Count3/5

At 29 tools, the count is high but not unreasonable for a combined server. However, only 3 tools are Met-specific, so the count feels inflated by unrelated tools. A more focused Met server would have fewer tools.

Completeness2/5

For a Met museum server, the tool surface is severely limited: only search, get by ID, and list departments. Missing operations like filtering by artist, retrieving related objects, or accessing collection highlights. The domain coverage is incomplete.

Resources