Skip to main content
Glama

Salesforce

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.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: caching at 1h, model family details, response structure with diagnostics, and the exclusion of fed_candidates from ranking. It also explains edge calculation (net of slippage) and includes warnings about market moves. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 comprehensive but verbose. It front-loads the main purpose but then dives into extensive detail about three model families, response segments, and diagnostics. While well-structured, some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating min_kelly and min_partition_leg_kelly explanation). A slightly more concise version would improve readability.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and complex behavior, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the three response segments (model_driven, structural_arbitrage, concentrated_longshot), the diagnostics for empty segments, caching behavior, and the fed_candidates exclusion. This equips an AI agent with everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains default values (e.g., min_edge_pp=0.5, slippage_pp=0.3), gives usage examples (e.g., min_liquidity=5000 to drop thin books), and clarifies how knobs like min_partition_leg_kelly interact with partition_overround opportunities. This exceeds the baseline 3.

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: scanning Polymarket markets to find opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price. It uses a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('Polymarket markets'), and the detailed explanation of model families distinguishes it from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edge_tracker.

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 clear context: it's built for 'what should I bet on today' and helps agents discover opportunities without paging. It outlines tradeable-edge knobs and filters (min_liquidity, max_spread_pp) that control realizability. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like polymarket_arbitrage, so a 4 is warranted.

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

All Salesforce 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set mixes Salesforce CRUD tools with a large Pipeworx research and prediction-market platform, and several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta are functionally identical, grounded/validate_claim/deep_research cover similar lookup/verification territory, and the six polymarket/bet tools share edge-finding purposes with only subtle distinctions. An agent would need to read long descriptions carefully to pick the right one, so misselection risk is high.

Naming Consistency3/5

Salesforce tools follow a clear sf_verb_noun pattern, and the Pipeworx tools mostly use lowercase snake_case phrase names, but the conventions diverge: ask_pipeworx has no underscore, deep_research/entity_profile are noun phrases rather than verb-first, and the sf_* prefix is a separate naming family. It is still readable, but it is not a single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

39 tools is well past the heavy threshold, and most belong to a broad data/research platform rather than the Salesforce scope implied by the server name; only 8 tools are actually Salesforce CRUD/query operations. The count feels bloated for a coherent assistant, even if individual features are useful.

Completeness4/5

The Salesforce subset is complete: create/get/update/delete/query/search/describe/list-object cover the record lifecycle with no dead ends. The broader Pipeworx ecosystem also has strong coverage, including routing, grounded verification, research, entity resolution, memory, and subscriptions, with only minor gaps such as no direct citation-fetch tool and no Salesforce upsert/bulk operations.

Resources