Skip to main content
Glama

Singstat Sg

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

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and no destructiveness. The description adds significant behavioral context: it uses daily snapshots, tracks time-series, computes trend and decay, handles expired opportunities, and notes limits (60-day TTL, snapshot enablement). No contradiction 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is dense with information but front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence contributes value, but it could be slightly more concise by trimming redundant phrasing while retaining all key details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of time-series tracking and lack of output schema, the description fairly completely covers response fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and limits. Minor gaps like missing pagination or examples are acceptable for this type of tool.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by specifying defaults, clamp ranges, and the meaning of window families. It also explains the response structure, which is not in 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 identifies the tool's purpose: providing edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on time-series analysis and answering a specific question about edge longevity.

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 when to use the tool (to assess if an edge is fresh or aged) and provides context about what differentiates a fresh wide edge from an old one. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like polymarket_edges for raw snapshots.

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

All Singstat Sg 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
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly defined purpose with detailed descriptions, and despite some composite tools, there is no ambiguity in when to use which one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mix verb_noun and noun_noun patterns, with some purely verb names, lacking a consistent convention. While readable, the pattern is not predictable.

Tool Count3/5

With 23 tools, the server is on the heavy side for a mixed-purpose toolset. Each tool earns its place, but the count feels slightly bloated for the breadth of domains covered.

Completeness3/5

The server covers several domains (AI visibility, betting, entity lookup, etc.) with reasonable depth, but the lack of a unified domain means some areas feel under-served (e.g., no update/delete except memory).

Resources