Skip to main content
Glama

Quotes

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds critical behavioral details: history depth is bounded by 60-day TTL, decay numbers come from daily closes (not intraday), and snapshots are written only on cache-miss. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then detailed response format, then limitations. It is slightly verbose (response details could be in an output schema), but front-loading the core purpose and using clear sections makes it effective.

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 thoroughly explains return fields (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) with their semantics and limitations. This provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what data to expect and the boundaries of the tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters documented). The description reinforces defaults and constraints (days: default 14, max 30; window: default '1wk') and explains their role in the snapshot family. Adds value beyond schema by tying parameters to the response structure.

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 built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots.' It answers 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' and distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_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 provides usage context by contrasting fresh vs. old edges ('a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old wide edge are different trades'). It implies when to use this tool (for historical persistence analysis) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternative tools.

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

All Quotes 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The tool set includes multiple similar tools (e.g., three ask_pipeworx variants, several Polymarket tools) that could cause agent confusion. While each has a distinct purpose, the boundaries are subtle and descriptions lean heavily on jargon, making misselection likely.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case consistently. Most follow a noun_verb or verb_noun pattern, but some (e.g., ai_visibility_check, bet_research) start with a subject rather than an action, breaking a strict verb-first convention.

Tool Count2/5

With 40 tools, the server feels overloaded. The name 'Quotes' suggests a narrow focus, yet the tool set spans fact-checking, company research, prediction markets, and more. Many tools are highly specialized or meta-tools, inflating the count without clear necessity.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide range of use cases, from quotes and literature to financial data and prediction markets. However, there are noticeable gaps in core areas (e.g., basic CRUD for quotes beyond search and random), and the sheer breadth creates dead ends for deep workflows.

Resources