Skip to main content
Glama

Open Elevation

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).

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, etc.) are supplemented by detailed behavioral disclosure: time-series, trends, decay calculation, expired opportunities, snapshot dates, and limits (60-day TTL, daily closes, not intraday). No contradiction with annotations; description adds significant context beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured: purpose first, then params, then detailed response format (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]), and finally limitations. Every sentence adds useful information, no fluff. Front-loaded with the core question.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly explains all return fields, their semantics, and edge cases (e.g., gaps in snapshots). It covers history depth limits and computation details, making it fully actionable for an agent.

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 schema already describes parameters. Description adds value by specifying defaults and clamping (days: default 14, max 30; window: default '1wk') and clarifying the 'window' as snapshot family. This is helpful beyond the schema, justifying a score above baseline 3.

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 the specific question 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., polymarket_edges) by focusing on persistence and decay rather than raw 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 explicit usage context: 'a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old wide edge are different trades,' guiding when to use this tool. It contrasts scenarios and implies when not to use (e.g., for raw edges). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for exclusions, missing a clear 'when-not' statement.

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

All Open Elevation 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The tool set covers many unrelated domains (elevation, finance, prediction markets, AI visibility, etc.) with multiple overlapping tools per domain (e.g., three 'ask_pipeworx' variants, several 'polymarket' tools). An agent would struggle to distinguish which tool to use for a given task.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names follow no consistent pattern: some use snake_case with vague verbs (e.g., 'process', 'run'), others use descriptive but unrelated prefixes ('ai_', 'ask_pipeworx_', 'polymarket_'). There is no uniform verb_noun structure.

Tool Count3/5

With 32 tools, the count is reasonable for a large server, but the vast majority are irrelevant to the server's stated purpose (elevation). This mismatch makes the count inappropriate.

Completeness1/5

The server name 'Open Elevation' implies a focus on elevation data, yet only 2 of 32 tools (get_elevation, get_elevations) are related. There are severe gaps: no area elevation, no geocoding, no terrain analysis. The tool surface is largely off-topic.

Resources