Skip to main content
Glama

Rawg

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds substantial behavioral context: snapshots have a 60-day TTL, decay is computed from daily closes of edge_pp_net net of default slippage, gaps mean no scan occurred, and it explains the response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates). No contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core question and purpose. It is somewhat verbose but each sentence adds value. The structure flows from purpose to response format to limits, making it easy to follow.

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 the tool has only two parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It details the response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and boundary conditions (TTL, history depth), leaving little ambiguity for an agent.

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?

Input schema has full coverage with clear descriptions. The description restates parameters (days and window) and adds context: days are lookback with default 14 and max 30 (consistent with schema's 'clamp 2-30'), window is described as 'snapshot family' which adds meaning beyond the schema's wording.

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 defines the tool's purpose: providing edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots. It distinguishes between a fresh wide edge and an old one, which differentiates it from siblings like polymarket_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 states what the tool answers ('how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?') and provides context for when to use it. It does not, however, explicitly state when not to use it 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 Rawg 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 unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx, bet_research overlaps heavily with polymarket_edges, and entity_profile/recent_changes/compare_entities/validate_claim all pull from the same SEC/news fundamentals space. The memory trio and game lookup tools are distinct, but too many other tools could be confused for one another.

Naming Consistency3/5

The surface is uniformly snake_case and has some strong families (list_*, polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*), but it mixes verb-led names (search_games, remember, validate_claim) with noun-led names (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage, pipeworx_trending) and brand-style names like ask_pipeworx. There is a pattern, but it is not a single consistent one.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is a heavy surface, and the set feels sprawling rather than focused: a four-tool RAWG game submodule sits alongside a general-purpose research platform, Polymarket edge tooling, memory helpers, subscriptions, feedback, and meta-utilities. Many of these could have been consolidated or split into separate servers.

Completeness3/5

As a general data-research and prediction-market platform the coverage is strong, with lookup, grounded verification, entity resolution, research fan-out, and subscription flows. But for a server named Rawg, the game domain is thinly covered with only search/get/list tools and no game-detail enrichment or broader browsing surface, leaving the core domain feeling like an afterthought.

Resources