Skip to main content
Glama

Serpapi

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).

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and no destructive action. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations, such as the 60-day snapshot TTL bound, decay calculation method, and explanation of snapshot gaps.

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 with a concise opening line and detailed breakdown of response fields. While slightly lengthy, each sentence adds value and the structure is 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 thoroughly explains all response fields (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) with their meanings. It also covers limitations like history depth and decay calculation, making the tool fully understandable.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters. The description adds context by explaining default values and purpose in the tool's logic (e.g., 'lookback' for days, 'snapshot family' for window), enhancing understanding 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 clearly 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 from siblings like polymarket_edges by focusing on 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 offers clear context on when to use the tool, including a motivating example (fresh vs. old wide edge). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, relying on sibling context to differentiate.

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

All Serpapi 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and bet_research all querying data but with nuanced differences. The descriptions help but boundaries remain fuzzy, especially between ask_pipeworx and deep_research for broad vs. single lookups. Overall moderate ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: some tools use snake_case (ask_pipeworx, ai_visibility_check), others use camelCase (serpapi_google_jobs), and patterns vary widely (e.g., pipeworx_feedback vs. compare_entities). Only the serpapi_google_* group follows a consistent pattern.

Tool Count3/5

36 tools is on the high side for a single server, with many meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions) and niche prediction market tools. The scope seems overly broad, covering data lookup, prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions, which could be streamlined to a more focused set.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide range of domains (financial, economic, news, drugs, prediction markets, Google services), but lacks direct web search and write/update capabilities. While the coverage is broad, there are notable gaps (e.g., no generic web search, limited tool for modifying data) for a data-focused server.

Resources