Skip to main content
Glama

Nasa Cmr

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 already indicate readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds extensive behavioral details: response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), field semantics (trend, decay_pp_per_day signed by trade direction), snapshot gaps due to cache-miss, and TTL limits. It provides more than expected.

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 core question and written in a clear, narrative style. It includes some illustrative examples that add length but enhance understanding. Could be slightly more concise, but structure is good.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description covers return values thoroughly (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates with field descriptions). It also addresses limits, data recency, and sign conventions. It lacks mention of pagination or max items, but is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema itself documents parameters. The description adds useful context by clarifying 'days' as lookback and 'window' as snapshot family, and states defaults. It supplements rather than repeats 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's purpose: edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots. It explicitly answers the key question 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' and distinguishes between fresh and old edges, implying differentiation 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 provides context on when to use this tool (to assess edge history and decay) and contrasts different edge ages. It includes LIMITS explaining history depth and data sources. However, it lacks explicit statements about alternatives or when not to use it.

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

All Nasa Cmr 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 tool set mixes NASA-specific tools with a large number of financial and prediction market tools, causing confusion. Within the non-NASA tools, there is significant overlap (e.g., multiple Polymarket analysis tools, several research tools with vague boundaries).

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case, but naming patterns are inconsistent: some start with verbs (search_collections, get_collection), others are noun phrases (entity_profile, deep_research). There is no uniform verb_noun convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 33 tools, the count is high. Although it may be appropriate for the underlying domain (data/prediction markets), it is excessive for the server's stated NASA focus, where only 3 tools are relevant.

Completeness1/5

For a server named 'Nasa Cmr', the tool set is severely incomplete: only three tools cover NASA Earth science (search/granules/collections), lacking any support for missions, datasets, or advanced queries. The non-NASA tools are comprehensive but disconnected from the server name.

Resources