Skip to main content
Glama

Podcastindex

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?

Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent. The description adds rich behavioral details: it reads from daily snapshots, explains response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), and discloses limits (60-day TTL, decay from closes). No contradictions.

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 detailed and well-structured, starting with purpose, then answering a key question, explaining parameters, and detailing response format. It is somewhat lengthy but every 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 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains the response format (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) and all fields, plus limits. It is complete and leaves little ambiguity.

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 mentions defaults ('default 14', 'default 1wk') and clamps (days 2-30) but does not add significant new semantics beyond what the schema already 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry' for answering how long an edge has existed and if it's shrinking. It distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on historical trends and decay, not just current 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 explicitly answers a specific question ('how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'), implying when to use it. It does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate contexts.

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

All Podcastindex 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded overlap (one is grounded), and bet_research/validate_claim/compare_entities/entity_profile all query Pipeworx data with different intents, which could cause confusion.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are consistently lower_snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., search_podcasts, get_podcast, list_subscriptions). A few compound names like pipeworx_feedback and polymarket_arbitrage deviate slightly but remain readable.

Tool Count2/5

30 tools is excessive for a server named 'Podcastindex'. It aggregates unrelated domains (podcasts, Pipeworx queries, Polymarket, memory, etc.), making it feel like a kitchen sink rather than a focused tool set.

Completeness3/5

For podcasts, the tool set covers search, metadata, episodes, and trending but lacks subscription management. For the broader Pipeworx domain, ask_pipeworx and discover_tools provide wide access, but specific gaps exist (e.g., no direct SEC filing query). Overall, the surface is broad but uneven.

Resources