Skip to main content
Glama

Sistat Si

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. Description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), interpretation of negative edge_pp_net, computation basis (daily closes), and limits (60-day TTL). 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 long but well-structured with clear sections (RESPONSE:, LIMITS:). Front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds information, but some verbosity could be trimmed. Overall appropriate for the complexity.

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 fully explains the response format (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) and each field's meaning. Also covers limitations (60-day TTL, daily closes, not intraday). Comprehensive for a complex 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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by restating defaults (days default 14, max 30; window default '1wk') and clarifying clamping behavior (days clamp 2-30) that is also in schema but reinforced. This is useful for an agent.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'edge persistence and decay telemetry' built from daily snapshots, clearly answering 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'. It distinguishes from sibling tools 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?

Provides context on when to use (checking edge age and decay) and gives a trade-off example (fresh vs. old wide edge). Does not explicitly exclude alternatives but gives enough context for an agent to decide. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or comparison to siblings.

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

All Sistat Si 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, as well as between discover_tools and suggest_questions. However, detailed descriptions help differentiate them.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are highly inconsistent, mixing snake_case (ask_pipeworx, forget), camelCase (discoverTools, suggestQuestions), and underscores (ai_visibility_check, compare_entities). No predictable pattern.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the high side, but the broad domain (finance, pharma, prediction markets, etc.) partly justifies it. However, some tools like forget, remember, recall seem generic and could be separated.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a wide range of functionalities: visibility checks, pipeworx queries, entity profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, memory, and more. Minor gaps may exist in real-time data or specific niche sources.

Resources