Skip to main content
Glama

Openiban

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations already indicating read-only and idempotent behavior, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it explains the three response sections (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), defines the fields within them, and explicitly discloses data limitations such as the 60-day TTL, daily close granularity, and gaps in snapshot coverage. This goes well beyond the annotations and is highly transparent.

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 with clear sections: intro, Args, RESPONSE, and LIMITS. It front-loads the core purpose and packs in useful details without wasted words. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, making the length justified for the complexity of the tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes full responsibility for explaining the return structure. It thoroughly describes tracked[], expired[], and snapshot_dates[] including key fields and their meaning (e.g., trend, decay_pp_per_day, lifespan_days). It also covers important limitations and operational context, making it complete for a telemetry tool with no output schema.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already provides defaults and constraints for both parameters. The description adds a bit of extra semantic framing ('snapshot family', 'lookback') but does not materially improve on the schema's own descriptions. Since the schema handles the heavy lifting, the baseline of 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 opens with a specific and informative purpose: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots.' It clearly identifies the resource (edge snapshots) and the specific analytical function (persistence/decay), directly answering the question 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' This distinguishes it strongly from sibling tools like polymarket_edges, which likely provide current edge values.

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 strong contextual guidance by contrasting a 'fresh wide edge' with a '3-week-old wide edge' and noting they are different trades. It implies the tool is for understanding edge duration and decay, not just current edge strength. It mentions that snapshots are written when polymarket_edges runs, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

All Openiban 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 heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, and the polymarket_* family (edges, arbitrage, edge_tracker, fill_risk) blurs together for an agent trying to pick one. entity_profile and recent_changes also both pull company data, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are single-vs-multi variants of the same probe.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming is mostly snake_case and readable, with many verb_noun forms (validate_iban, generate_llms_txt, resolve_entity). However, there are bare verbs (remember, forget, recall, subscribe, unsubscribe), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes, pipeworx_trending), and inconsistent prefixes (ask_ vs polymarket_ vs suggest_) that break a clear pattern.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is borderline-heavy for a data-research API, but the bigger issue is that the server is named Openiban yet contains only two IBAN tools and 31 unrelated Pipeworx/data tools. The count feels bloated and misaligned with the server's apparent identity, though not extreme enough for a 1 or 2.

Completeness2/5

For the Pipeworx data-research domain the surface is quite rich (query, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, memory). For the server's stated IBAN purpose, only validate and suggest_iban exist — no generation, parsing, batch checks, or bank detail coverage — so the tool set is severely incomplete relative to the server name.

Resources