Skip to main content
Glama

Tarot Draw

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
  2. Removed
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Behavior is fully disclosed: reading snapshots, computing trend and decay from time-series, handling expired opportunities, and noting gaps in snapshot dates. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable context beyond 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 verbose but every sentence adds value, covering purpose, args, response structure, and limitations. It is front-loaded with the core question it answers. Some technical details could be compressed, but overall it is well-organized.

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 no output schema, the description exhaustively explains the response fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), including sub-fields like trend, decay_pp_per_day, and lifespan_days. Data gaps and computational details are covered, making the tool fully understandable.

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 (days, window) are well-described in the input schema with clear defaults and valid ranges. The description adds minimal extra meaning, essentially restating schema info. Given 100% schema coverage, a score of 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 provides 'edge persistence and decay telemetry' from polymarket_edges snapshots, answering a specific question about edge age vs. width. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'polymarket_edges' which likely gives current snapshot 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 explains the tool is for assessing edge persistence over time, with a concrete example of why a fresh wide edge differs from an old one. It mentions data limitations (60-day TTL, daily closes) but does not explicitly state when to prefer alternatives or 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 Tarot Draw 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tool families have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, suggest_questions and discover_tools are near-duplicates, and ai_visibility_check is a subset of scan_competitor_ai_presence. The five polymarket_* tools are heavily overlapping in purpose and rely on long descriptions to distinguish them, which an agent must read carefully to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and there are helpful prefixes (polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*, pipeworx_*), but the verb/noun ordering is inconsistent: verb-first names (generate_llms_txt, resolve_entity, scan_dependency) sit alongside noun-first names (bet_research, entity_profile, recent_changes) and bare verbs (forget, recall, remember). Sub-families are internally consistent, but the set as a whole follows no single convention.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is over the 'too many' threshold, and the scope is a grab-bag rather than a focused server: data research, prediction-market analysis, npm dependency checks, llms.txt generation, memory utilities, subscriptions, and exactly one tarot tool. The server is named 'Tarot Draw' yet 31 of 32 tools serve a completely different purpose, making the count wildly mismatched to the apparent identity.

Completeness2/5

For the inferred Pipeworx data/prediction-market domain the coverage is genuinely deep — ask/grounded/deep research, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, validation, subscriptions, alerts, edge tracking, and arbitrage all exist. But for the stated purpose ('Tarot Draw'), the surface is one draw tool with no deck details, spreads, reading history, or reversal support, and the data tools' domain is so diffuse that an agent cannot rely on the set forming a coherent workflow.

Resources