Skip to main content
Glama

Schrodingers Boolean

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description details data source (daily snapshots, cache-miss triggers), limits (60-day TTL, snapshot start), and computation specifics (daily closes, not intraday). 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 but well-organized with bullet-style output sections (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]). It front-loads the key question. Slightly verbose 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 no output schema, the description fully explains the response structure and computed fields (trend, decay, first_seen, lifespan). It covers data limitations and interpretation details (signed values, negative meaning). Very complete.

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 describes both parameters with 100% coverage. Description adds context: days default (14) and max (30), window options (24hr, 1wk, 1mo) and default (1wk). Slight mismatch in max (schema says clamp 2-30, description says max 30) but not misleading.

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 it provides edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots, answering specific questions about edge duration and trend. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'polymarket_edges' by adding time-series analysis.

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 explains the context of when to use it (comparing fresh vs. old edges) and implies an alternative (polymarket_edges for current state). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or direct sibling comparisons, but the intent is clear.

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

All Schrodingers Boolean 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, especially within the Polymarket and data query groups. However, the three ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and the overlap between deep_research and ask_pipeworx for broader questions could cause minor confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names follow some consistent prefixes (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_, scan_, recent_) but overall mix verb_noun, noun phrases, and standalone verbs (forget, recall, remember). This inconsistency reduces predictability, though the patterns are still readable.

Tool Count3/5

32 tools is high but justifiable given the server's dual role as a Pipeworx data gateway and Polymarket analysis suite. Each tool serves a distinct function in the workflow, but the count borders on heavy and could be streamlined.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle for the server's domain: discovery, querying, grounded answers, entity resolution, company profiles, fact-checking, prediction market analysis, memory, and monitoring. Minor gaps exist (no account management or direct data modification), but these are out of scope for a read-only data interface.

Resources