Skip to main content
Glama

Opendosm My

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

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
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 significant behavioral detail: reads from daily snapshots, returns tracked/expired arrays with specific fields, and notes limits like 60-day TTL and decay computed from daily closes.

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 dense and well-structured: purpose first, then response format, then limitations. Every sentence provides value without unnecessary words.

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 thoroughly explains the return structure: tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[], and their subfields. It also covers limitations and history depth, making the tool's behavior fully understandable.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description restates parameter defaults and constraints (days: default 14, max 30; window: default 1wk) but does not add new semantics beyond the schema.

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: 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges (raw edges) and polymarket_arbitrage.

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 usage context by contrasting a fresh wide edge with a 3-week-old one, implying the tool is for assessing historical persistence. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough.

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

All Opendosm My 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The set includes three nearly-identical ask_pipeworx variants (base, beta, grounded) that differ only subtly, and deep_research overlaps with ask_pipeworx for multi-part queries. Several company/prediction tools also share adjacent purposes (entity_profile vs recent_changes vs compare_entities; polymarket_arbitrage vs polymarket_edges), though detailed descriptions help. Overall, an agent could mis-select between these overlapping tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun or consistent prefix pattern (opendosm_*, polymarket_*), and the ask_pipeworx family is internally consistent. However, a few are noun phrases (entity_profile, ai_visibility_check, recent_alerts) and some verbs aren't uniform (list_datasets vs dataset_meta vs get_dataset). The mixture is readable but not fully consistent.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the typical focused server range and includes a clearly redundant experimental variant (ask_pipeworx_beta) plus many loosely-related utility functions (memory, subscriptions, dependency scanning, llms.txt generation). While the broad scope justifies some size, the count feels excessive for the 'Opendosm My' name, which suggests a narrower Malaysian-statistics focus.

Completeness4/5

For the apparent overarching goal of a multi-domain research/query platform, the surface is quite complete: data lookup, deep research, entity comparison, claim verification, prediction-market analysis, memory, and subscriptions are all covered. The Malaysian OpenDOSM component itself has list/meta/get lifecycle. Minor gaps (e.g., no direct dataset search beyond curated lists, no way to execute arbitrary Pipeworx tools directly) are workable.

Resources