Skip to main content
Glama

Opencellid

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds valuable behavioral details: response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]), decay computation on |edge_pp_net|, and sign convention (negative = SELL YES). 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 well-structured with a clear front-loaded purpose and sections for response details and limits. It is somewhat verbose but every sentence adds value. Minor point: could be slightly more concise, but structure compensates.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains response fields (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) and their content. It also notes limitations (60-day TTL, start date, decay from daily closes). For a moderately complex tool, this is comprehensive.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (days, window). The description adds context: default values, clamping (2-30), window options, and explanation of snapshot triggers. This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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: providing edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on time-series tracking and decay, answering 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'

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 (analyzing edge persistence) and explains trade significance. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear. The LIMITS section provides constraints on history depth and decay computation.

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

All Opencellid 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

Several tools are near-indistinguishable by role: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are documented as currently identical, and ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research overlap as lookup/research entry points. The six-tool Polymarket cluster and the suggest_questions/discover_tools pair add further boundary confusion despite very long descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Snake_case is used consistently, and clusters like ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* have internal consistency. However, the global convention is mixed: verb_object names (get_cell, resolve_entity, unsubscribe) sit beside noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes, cells_in_area) and product-prefixed nouns (pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges), so tool names are not predictable from function.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is too many for a server named Opencellid, especially since only get_cell and cells_in_area actually belong to the cell-tower domain. Even as a broader Pipeworx/data bundle, the set is heavy and includes unrelated one-offs like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency.

Completeness2/5

For an OpenCellID server, the surface is just two lookups, missing coverage stats, operator-based search, and other natural cell-tower operations. If judged instead as a Pipeworx data-research suite, coverage is broad, but the lack of a coherent stated domain makes obvious gaps and dead ends harder to identify.

Resources