Skip to main content
Glama

Rxnorm

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description provides extensive behavioral details beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive). It explains response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]), limits (60-day TTL, snapshot gaps), and that decay is from daily closes, not intraday. No contradiction 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, front-loading the core purpose. While it is relatively detailed and technical, every sentence adds necessary information. It could be slightly more concise but remains clear.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains the return fields and their meanings, including edge_pp_net time-series, trend, decay rate, and snapshot_dates. It also covers limits like history depth and TTL, making it complete for an agent.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description repeats the defaults and adds some context (e.g., 'snapshot family' for window), but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema.

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: providing edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots. It answers the specific question 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' and distinguishes itself by focusing on edge duration, which is distinct from sibling tools 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 gives clear context on when to use the tool, e.g., when needing edge persistence information. It notes the limitation that decay numbers are from daily closes, not intraday, implying when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools for other use cases.

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

All Rxnorm 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

Several tools blur together: ask_pipeworx_beta currently duplicates ask_pipeworx exactly, ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research/validate_claim all route natural-language questions to data sources, and the prediction-market tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, bet_research) have fuzzy boundaries. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent can easily misselect among them.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and the rxnorm_, polymarket_, and pipeworx_ prefixes create readable groupings, but the set mixes imperative verb-object names (validate_claim, list_subscriptions), noun-phrase names (entity_profile, recent_alerts), and bare verbs (remember, forget). It is readable but not a predictable uniform naming convention.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is in the too-many band for a coherent server, and the Rxnorm identity makes it worse: only 4 tools are actually RxNorm-specific while 31 are unrelated Pipeworx, prediction-market, memory, and utility tools. A focused RxNorm server would need a fraction of this surface.

Completeness3/5

The four rxnorm_* tools plus resolve_entity cover the main RxNorm lookup flow (search, properties, related, NDC), so the core is not broken. But the set lacks a reverse NDC-to-concept lookup and the 31 non-RxNorm tools do not complete any single coherent domain, leaving notable gaps relative to the server's stated purpose.

Resources