Skip to main content
Glama

Peeringdb

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Polymarket Edges

polymarket_edges
Read-onlyIdempotent

Scan top Polymarket markets and return opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price. Built for "what should I bet on today" — agents discover opportunities without paging hundreds of markets. FIVE MODEL FAMILIES grouped into three response segments under by_segment: (1) MODEL_DRIVEN — crypto_price (lognormal barrier from 90d FRED log-returns) and news_momentum (GDELT 7d/21d article-volume ratio, soft signal w/ halved Kelly). (2) STRUCTURAL_ARBITRAGE — partition_overround on mutually-exclusive events; per-leg favorite-longshot bias correction with per-sport α (tennis 1.02, soccer 1.10, MMA 1.15, default 1.0); placeholder-slug filter drops will-person-X / will-team-Y / will-manager-Z / will-someone-else- backstops; partitions with >20% placeholder fraction skipped entirely. (3) CONCENTRATED_LONGSHOT — basket trade when one leg ≥75% AND ≥2 longshots ≤8% AND portfolio return ≥25:1; rare-by-design (gates relaxed Run 8 from prior 85%/5%/50:1). EVERY OPPORTUNITY carries edge_pp_net (after slippage), kelly_fraction + kelly_fraction_half (capped at 0.25), market.liquidity, market.spread_pp, market.volume, plus a 24h-move warning ("Market moved X.Xpp in 24h") when the recent move alone exceeds the edge — your edge may already be in the price. TRADEABLE-EDGE KNOBS: min_liquidity / max_spread_pp drop opportunities where edge isn't realizable; min_partition_leg_kelly filters partitions by best per-leg Kelly. RESPONSE TOP-LEVEL: by_segment{model_driven,structural_arbitrage,concentrated_longshot}, fed_candidates/fed_note (Fed bets surface here, excluded from ranking — 1m-T vs EFFR signal is unreliable at meeting-month horizons without paid OIS/SOFR-futures data), and _diagnostics{concentrated_longshot:{...funnel counters},category_counts,filter_skips} so callers can see WHY a segment is empty (top-N stale, all candidates failed gates, knob dropped them). Cached 1h at the KV level keyed on all knobs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoTop N edges to return after ranking. Default 10, max 25.
windowNoPolymarket volume window to filter markets. Default 1wk.
min_kellyNoMinimum half-Kelly fraction (as decimal, e.g. 0.005 = 0.5% of bankroll) to include single-leg opportunities. Default 0 (no filter). Skips opportunities that are too small to bet sensibly even if the edge is large.
min_edge_ppNoMinimum |edge| in percentage points to include (default 0.5). Edge is evaluated NET of slippage.
slippage_ppNoAssumed execution slippage in percentage points per leg (default 0.3). Subtracted from raw |edge| before ranking and Kelly sizing. Polymarket has zero trading fees as of 2024 but bid/ask + thin depth typically eats 20-50bp per trade. Bump for very thin partitions; drop to 0 if you have a smarter fill model.
max_spread_ppNoTradeable-edge filter. Maximum bid/ask spread in percentage points on the representative market. Default null (no filter). Set to 2 to require tight books — anything wider eats most plausible edges.
min_liquidityNoTradeable-edge filter. Minimum $ liquidity on the representative market (or for partition_overround, on at least one top_leg). Default 0 (no filter). Set to 5000 to drop thin-book opportunities where executing the edge would walk the book past breakeven.
category_filterNoComma-separated list to restrict the output: "model_driven" (crypto_price + news_momentum), "structural_arbitrage" (partition_overround), "concentrated_longshot". Combine like "model_driven,structural_arbitrage". Default: all.
min_partition_leg_kellyNoMinimum BEST per-leg half-Kelly fraction across a partition_overround opportunity's top_legs (or longshot_basket legs). Default 0 (no filter). Partition arbs always return kelly_fraction_half=0 at the parent level by design (basket trades don't compose to single-leg Kelly), so min_kelly never filters them — this knob applies to the per-leg Kelly inside top_legs instead. Use to suppress thin partitions whose individual leg edges aren't worth the per-leg slippage cost.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond annotations by disclosing caching behavior ('Cached 1h at the KV level'), internal model families and their formulas, structural details like the placeholder-slug filter, and special cases like 'Partition arbs always return kelly_fraction_half=0 at the parent level by design.' It also warns about 24h market moves potentially pricing in the edge. These are valuable behavioral insights not derivable from readOnlyHint or idempotentHint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely long and dense, with detailed formulas and per-sport α values. While it is structured into segments and knobs, it reads as a wall of text that could be overwhelming. It is front-loaded with purpose but then dives into extensive model internals that may exceed what an agent needs for tool selection. Appropriately sized would be more concise.

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 there is no output schema, the description thoroughly documents the response top-level (by_segment, fed_candidates, _diagnostics) and explains why segments may be empty. It covers all 9 parameters through schema plus additional narrative. It also notes tradeable-edge knobs and caching. This is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret results confidently.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics beyond the schema: it explains how min_kelly interacts with partition_overround (parent-level kelly always 0), why min_partition_leg_kelly exists specifically for per-leg filtering, and clarifies slippage assumptions (zero fees but 20-50bp bid/ask). This adds real value.

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 verb+resource: 'Scan top Polymarket markets and return opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage (focused on arbitrage) and polymarket_edge_tracker (tracking edges over time). The 'what should I bet on today' use case further clarifies the tool's niche.

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?

Explicit usage context is provided: 'Built for what should I bet on today' and notes agents use it to avoid paging hundreds of markets. It also explains when certain knobs should be adjusted (e.g., max_spread_pp, min_liquidity) and why Fed bets are excluded from ranking. However, it doesn't name sibling tools as alternatives, so it doesn't fully distinguish when to use this vs polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_fill_risk.

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

All Peeringdb 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

Many tools overlap in purpose: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all provide data retrieval with subtle differences. The Polymarket suite (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) and AI visibility tools (ai_visibility_check, scan_competitor_ai_presence) also have fuzzy boundaries. While some tools are clearly distinct, the overall set has significant ambiguity that could lead to misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix conventions: some are verb_noun (search_networks, compare_entities, remember, forget), others are noun_compound (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, ask_pipeworx), and a few are verb-only (recall, forget). The pattern is inconsistent, with no clear naming strategy across the tool surface.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the server is heavily overloaded. While it serves as a general data platform, many tools are meta-level (discover_tools, suggest_questions) or peripheral (subscriptions, memory). The count feels excessive for the core purpose, and many tools could be consolidated or removed.

Completeness1/5

Despite the server name 'Peeringdb', only three tools (search_networks, search_facilities, search_exchanges) directly serve that domain. The vast majority of tools cover unrelated areas (Pipeworx data, Polymarket betting, AI visibility, memory, subscriptions). For the declared purpose of PeeringDB, the surface is severely incomplete—missing common operations like retrieving network details, viewing IX members, or managing peering policies.

Resources