Skip to main content
Glama

Opentreeoflife

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description richly details behavior beyond annotations: how decay is computed, response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), trend classification, limitations (60-day TTL, row count). This fully informs the agent of what to expect.

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 verbose but well-structured: starts with a clear statement, details parameters, then response shape, then limitations. Slightly long but each sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema, the description comprehensively covers the return format, computed fields, data sources, and limitations. An agent can fully understand the tool's outputs and constraints.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description reiterates defaults and constraints but adds no meaningful new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: analyzing edge persistence and decay from daily snapshots. It answers a specific trading question ('how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'), distinguishing it from sibling tool polymarket_edges which likely provides 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 implies usage context (comparing fresh vs old edges) and provides parameter defaults and constraints, but does not explicitly list when to avoid or mention alternatives. The use case is clear, but explicit exclusionary guidance is missing.

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

All Opentreeoflife 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have clear distinct purposes, but ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research have overlapping functionality with subtle differences, causing potential confusion. Overall, most tools are distinguishable.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names use a mix of patterns: some follow verb_noun (validate_claim, resolve_entity), others are compound nouns (polymarket_arbitrage, ai_visibility_check), and some are plain verbs (recall, forget). Inconsistent style and length reduce predictability.

Tool Count3/5

At 34 tools, the count is on the high side for a typical server, but it might be manageable if the scope were broad. However, the server name 'Opentreeoflife' suggests a narrow biological focus, making the large count feel mismatched and excessive.

Completeness1/5

For a server named after a tree-of-life database, only three tools (match_names, common_ancestor, taxon_info) are relevant. Missing fundamental operations like listing children, searching taxa, or retrieving phylogenetic trees leaves the domain severely incomplete.

Resources