Skip to main content
Glama

Security Feeds

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details: reliance on daily snapshots, 60-day TTL, decay computation from daily closes (not intraday), and explanation of the response structure. No contradictions 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful information (purpose, response fields, limitations) without redundancy. Efficient for a complex tool.

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?

Without an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return value: tracked, expired, snapshot_dates, and their subfields. It also covers limitations (TTL, snapshot gaps, decay computation) and edge cases, making the tool easy to understand.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the default values and constraints for 'days' and 'window' but does not add any new information beyond the input schema. No additional parameter semantics provided.

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: providing edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots. It answers a specific question about edge age and shrinkage, and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'polymarket_edges' by focusing on historical tracking 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 (e.g., comparing a fresh edge to an old one), and contrasts different scenarios ('a 3-week-old wide edge is different'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly name alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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

All Security Feeds 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 creates real selection ambiguity — beta is currently identical to the stable router, and grounded shares the same routing with an added evidence step. Polymarket tools also overlap (polymarket_edges vs polymarket_arbitrage both surface structural arbitrage), and entity_profile/recent_changes both pull filings and news.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (resolve_entity, list_feeds, validate_claim, compare_entities). Minor deviations exist — bare verbs (remember, recall, forget, subscribe, unsubscribe) and noun-first names (entity_profile, recent_changes, pipeworx_trending) — but the overall convention is consistent and readable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a server nominally named 'Security Feeds' — only three tools actually relate to security feeds. Even as a broad data-research platform, the surface feels bloated with five near-exclusive Polymarket tools, three memory tools, and four subscription-lifecycle tools that could be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

For the actual domain revealed by the tools (data research, entity intelligence, prediction markets, subscriptions, feeds), coverage is strong: resolution, profiles, changes, comparison, claim verification, memory CRUD, subscription lifecycle, and feed operations are all present. Minor gaps include no subscription-update tool and no direct feed-search tool, but the ask_pipeworx router compensates.

Resources