Skip to main content
Glama

Montreal Events

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 adds extensive behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations: it explains the response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), how decay numbers are computed (daily closes, not intraday), and limits (snapshot TTL). No contradictions.

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 well-structured with clear sections for response fields and limits. It is slightly long but each sentence adds value, so it earns a 4.

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 no output schema, the description comprehensively explains the return format (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates with detailed fields) and limitations. It is fully complete for a complex tool with two parameters.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds default values and clarifies that 'window' refers to snapshot family, but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tracks edge persistence and decay telemetry, answering when an edge has existed and whether it's shrinking. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling polymarket_edges by being built from its daily snapshots for time-series analysis.

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 provides clear context for use (comparing fresh vs old wide edges) and mentions limitations (60-day TTL, daily closes). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like polymarket_edges, though the differentiation is implicit.

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

All Montreal Events 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set contains multiple near-duplicate meta-query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools) and five overlapping Polymarket analysis tools, creating genuine selection ambiguity despite detailed descriptions. The single events tool is distinct, but it is drowned out by a crowd of similar data-research utilities.

Naming Consistency4/5

Almost all tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, validate_claim, remember, forget). Only 'events' deviates by being a bare noun, but the overall convention is predictable and readable.

Tool Count1/5

32 tools is extreme for a server named 'Montreal Events', and only one tool actually relates to that domain. The remaining 31 form a sprawling, unrelated data-research, prediction-market, and memory toolkit that would overwhelm any agent trying to work with Montréal event data.

Completeness1/5

For the server's stated purpose, the surface is severely incomplete: a single read-only event search with no event details, venue info, categories, or management operations. The Pipeworx tools may cover their own domain thoroughly, but they contribute nothing to the Montreal Events scope.

Resources