Skip to main content
Glama

sec

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds rich behavioral context: how snapshots are written (cache-miss), why snapshot gaps occur, the 60-day TTL limit, and that decay is computed from daily closes rather than intraday. It also explains the meaning of expired opportunities and the 'competition clock' concept.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but densely informative, with clear structural labels (Args, RESPONSE, LIMITS) and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value, explaining response fields and operational limits without redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description thoroughly explains all return fields (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) including sub-fields like first_seen, trend, decay_pp_per_day, and lifespan_days. It also covers limitations (TTL, data gaps, daily vs intraday), making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (days, window) with defaults and ranges. The description repeats defaults ('default 14, max 30', 'default 1wk') but adds minimal new semantics like 'snapshot family' and cache-miss behavior. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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' and answers a specific question: 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' It distinguishes itself from sibling polymarket_edges by focusing on the temporal dimension of edges rather than current snapshots.

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 implies when to use the tool by explaining the use case ('a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old wide edge are different trades') and describing what the response contains (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over polymarket_edges.

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

All sec 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded trio are three variants of the same router — and the beta variant is explicitly stated to be identical to the stable one right now, making mis-selection nearly inevitable. The six polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also have subtly overlapping boundaries where an agent could easily grab the wrong one.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tools use snake_case with a clear verb_noun or noun_compound shape (get_company_facts, resolve_entity, recent_changes, polymarket_edges). Minor deviations: the bare-verb memory trio (remember/recall/forget), the brand-style ask_pipeworx* naming, and a mix of verb-first vs. entity-first ordering, but the overall pattern is readable and predictable.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is well above the typical well-scoped range, but the server's actual scope is enormous — a universal structured-data gateway, prediction-market suite, memory system, subscription system, and utility tools. However, the count feels inflated by genuine redundancy: ask_pipeworx_beta currently duplicates ask_pipeworx, and the polymarket cluster could plausibly be consolidated into fewer tools.

Completeness4/5

Each sub-domain has strong lifecycle coverage: entity resolution (resolve_entity, search_companies), company analysis (get_company_facts/filings, entity_profile, recent_changes, compare_entities), full CRUD for both memory and subscriptions, and an exhaustively covered prediction-market domain (research, edges, arb, fill risk, tracking, cross-venue). Minor gaps exist — there's no direct single-filing document fetch tool (search_within implies fetching via the gateway but no explicit getter), and the AI-visibility tools lack historical tracking — but these are workaround-able rather than blocking.

Resources