Skip to main content
Glama

Open Sanctions

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds critical behavioral details: data from daily snapshots, 60-day TTL, decay computed from daily closes (not intraday), and conditions when snapshots are written. 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 fairly long but efficiently packed with necessary details. It starts with purpose, then provides a detailed response format, and ends with limits. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose in some parts.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fully specifies the response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) and their fields. Combined with annotations, it provides comprehensive context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 covers 100% of parameters but description adds context: explains 'window' as snapshot family with defaults and options, and provides clamp range for 'days'. This adds meaning beyond the schema definitions.

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 it provides 'edge persistence and decay telemetry' and answers a specific question, differentiating it from sibling tools like 'polymarket_edges' which likely focus on 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 explains when to use the tool (to assess edge age and decay) using a concrete example. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives.

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

All Open Sanctions 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, especially the ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research) which all serve to query data but with subtle differences. An agent would struggle to distinguish which to use without deep understanding of their nuances.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tool names follow a verb_noun or noun_noun pattern in snake_case, but there are exceptions like 'forget', 'recall', 'remember' which are single verbs, and names like 'ask_pipeworx' mix verb and proper noun. Overall pattern is discernible but not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is high for a server named 'Open Sanctions' which implies a focused domain. The tool set spans sanctions, meta-querying, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and more, making it feel bloated and unfocused relative to the server's name.

Completeness2/5

For a sanctions server, only two tools (search_entities, get_entity) directly address the domain, missing obvious operations like update, delete, or list. Many tools are unrelated to sanctions, leaving the core domain incomplete.

Resources