Skip to main content
Glama

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).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds substantial behavioral details: response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), limits (60-day TTL), and that decay is based on daily closes. No contradictions with annotations.

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 appropriately sized given the complexity. It fronts the core purpose, then describes args, response, and limits. Every sentence adds value, though the response section is somewhat lengthy but necessary due to lack of output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and their subfields (trend, decay_pp_per_day, lifespan_days). It also notes limitations (60-day TTL, daily closes). Minor improvement would be to explicitly state the response is JSON.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description repeats and slightly expands on the schema (e.g., 'clamp 2-30' is already in schema). It adds no critical meaning beyond the schema, so 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 provides 'edge persistence and decay telemetry' and answers 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' It distinguishes itself from sibling polymarket_edges by focusing on historical tracking 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 gives context on when to use the tool ('a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old wide edge are different trades'), implying it's for evaluating edge age and decay. It does not explicitly list exclusions but the sibling tools provide alternatives.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set mixes near-synonymous routers (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded), overlapping discovery tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions), and several prediction-market scanners (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker) whose boundaries are easy to blur. The six onedrive_* tools are distinct, but they are buried in an unrelated toolkit where multiple tools appear to address the same task.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is split across several conventions: onedrive_*, polymarket_*, and pipeworx_* form consistent clusters, but top-level tools use bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), noun phrases (entity_profile, compare_entities), and varied styles (deep_research, generate_llms_txt, validate_claim). The pattern is readable within clusters, but not predictable across the server.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is heavy, and the vast majority have nothing to do with the server's name 'Onedrive' — only 6 of 37 target OneDrive, while 31 span Pipeworx data, Polymarket betting, memory, and web utilities. This is a sprawling multi-domain bundle rather than a focused server.

Completeness1/5

As a OneDrive server, the surface is severely incomplete: it offers read-only coverage (list, search, get, profile, shared) but no upload, create, update, move, copy, delete, or share operations, and binary Office/PDF content returns unreadable bytes. The Pipeworx tools are individually comprehensive, but they do not fill the basic lifecycle gaps for the server's apparent file-management domain.