Skip to main content
Glama

Simap

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the source (daily snapshots), return structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), computation details (decay from daily closes, not intraday), and limitations (60-day TTL, snapshot gaps). Annotations already confirm read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and the description aligns with 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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. While every sentence adds value, it is relatively long. The structure is clear: purpose, arguments, response format, limitations. Minor redundancy with schema could be tightened.

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?

The description fully covers the return values (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), explains how each is computed, and notes limitations. With no output schema, the description bears the full burden and succeeds. All aspects of using the tool are addressed.

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?

Both parameters are documented in the schema with defaults and ranges. The description repeats this information but does not add substantial new semantics. Given 100% schema coverage, baseline 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 the tool's purpose: analyzing edge persistence and decay from daily snapshots. It specifies the core question answered ('how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on persistence telemetry.

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 on when to use the tool (e.g., distinguishing between fresh and old edges) and explains the response structure. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide conditions when not to use it.

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

All Simap 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

There are several tools with overlapping query responsibilities: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-variants of the same router, and bet_research, polymarket_edges, and polymarket_arbitrage all target prediction-market opportunity discovery. An agent must read the long descriptions carefully to distinguish them, and some variants are behaviorally identical today.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are readable snake_case, but the verb_noun convention is not consistently applied: some are clean verb phrases like validate_claim and discover_tools, while others are noun phrases like entity_profile, recent_alerts, or simap_project. The prefixed groups (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) help, but the overall naming style is mixed.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is above the heavy range, and the set is inflated by redundant router variants, five overlapping Polymarket tools, and loosely related utilities like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency. The server is named Simap but only three tools relate to Swiss procurement, making the scope feel bloated and misaligned.

Completeness4/5

For an information-retrieval-style server, the core workflows are well covered: discovery, routing, grounded answers, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, fact-checking, subscriptions, and memory. The main gaps are minor, such as updating a subscription in place or deeper native Simap-specific actions, and those can be worked around.

Resources