Skip to main content
Glama

Tankerkoenig

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 description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations, including data source (daily snapshots), response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]), and limitations (60-day TTL, decay computation). Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description does not contradict them.

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 but efficient, front-loading the purpose and then covering args and response. It could be slightly more structured, but every sentence adds value.

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 having no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the return values, including field meanings and limitations. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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. The description adds extra meaning by explaining defaults and clamping for 'days' and the meaning of 'window' as snapshot family. This adds value 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: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots.' It answers the specific question of how long an edge has existed and whether it is shrinking, distinguishing it from sibling tools that likely provide raw edge data.

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 context on when to use this tool, emphasizing the difference between fresh and old edges. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools, 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 Tankerkoenig 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
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools occupy nearly identical roles: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical right now), ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer research questions; polymarket_edges, bet_research, and polymarket_arbitrage overlap heavily on prediction-market opportunities; entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes overlap on company research. The detailed descriptions help, but the clusters create real misselection risk.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tools follow a readable snake_case convention, many with verb_noun structure (resolve_entity, list_subscriptions, validate_claim, scan_dependency). Minor deviations exist: tankerkoenig_stations_nearby plural vs tankerkoenig_station_details/prices singular, plus noun-style names like pipeworx_feedback and pipeworx_trending, but the overall pattern is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy, and the problem is compounded by the server being named Tankerkoenig: only 3 of the 34 tools relate to German fuel prices while the other 31 are an unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket/memory/subscription toolkit. This is a sprawling, unfocused surface rather than a well-scoped set.

Completeness3/5

For the nominal Tankerkoenig domain, stations_nearby + station_details + prices cover core lookups, though station search by name and price history are missing. For the broader bundled data/prediction-market domain, coverage is extensive but has notable gaps such as no trade execution, no general web search, and several redundant access paths that complicate the surface.

Resources