Skip to main content
Glama

nouel

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: the response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), the meaning of snapshot gaps, the 60-day TTL bound on history, and the decay calculation basis (daily closes, net of slippage). No contradictions found.

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 longer than minimal but well-structured with sections for args, response, and limits. Every sentence provides distinct value, and key points are front-loaded. The response section is dense but organized, though slightly verbose in enumerating every field.

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?

This tool has a complex output (time-series telemetry) and no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return values. It thoroughly covers tracked, expired, snapshot_dates, and limitations (TTL, decay calculation, data gaps). This is comprehensive enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the description mostly echoes schema content: days default/clamp and window default. It adds the concept of 'snapshot family' for window and clarifies days as lookback, but does not meaningfully expand beyond the structured definitions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots.' It answers a specific analytical question ('how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on historical time-series rather than current 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 concrete usage context with the example 'a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old wide edge are different trades' and explains the median lifespan as 'your competition clock.' However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparisons to sibling tools like polymarket_edges, though it implies the relationship by stating it is built from polymarket_edges snapshots.

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

All nouel 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tool groups have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research all query Pipeworx data; polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker all analyze prediction markets). Descriptions help distinguish them, but the boundaries are not always clear.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are mostly descriptive but mix conventions: some are verb_noun (list_subscriptions, get_prizes_by_year), others are noun_verb (pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges), and a few are single verbs (remember, recall). No strong pattern, but still readable.

Tool Count4/5

With 32 tools, the server covers a wide range of domains (data querying, prediction markets, company analysis, Nobel prizes, memory, subscriptions). The count is high but each tool serves a specific purpose, justifying the breadth.

Completeness4/5

The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for its stated domains: data retrieval, entity resolution, comparison, monitoring, and memory. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct bet placement on Polymarket), but core workflows are well-supported.

Resources