Skip to main content
Glama

Theaudiodb

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description significantly adds value by detailing the response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), explaining trend and decay computation, and mentioning limits (60-day TTL, daily closes, not intraday). 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 fairly long but efficient, packing essential information into a single paragraph. It could be slightly more structured or front-loaded, but every sentence adds value. Not overly verbose.

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 thoroughly explains the response format (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]), the meaning of each field, and important limits (TTL, data gaps). This covers the agent's likely questions about what the tool returns.

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 context by specifying defaults (days=14, window="1wk") and possible values for window (24hr, 1wk, 1mo), which goes beyond the schema. This additional clarity justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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, answering how long an edge has existed and if it's shrinking. It distinguishes the tool's historical perspective from the likely related sibling polymarket_edges, but does not explicitly differentiate from that sibling, which prevents a perfect score.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (to evaluate if a wide edge is fresh or stale) and explains parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Theaudiodb 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 tool families blur together: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical by admission), ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same 5,721 tools, and the six polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread, bet_research) heavily overlap on prediction-market analysis. The descriptions are verbose but an agent would struggle to reliably pick the right one without reading thousands of words.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case, but conventions vary: verb_noun (get_artist, search_album, list_subscriptions), noun-first (polymarket_edges, entity_profile, recent_alerts), bare verbs (remember, forget, recall, subscribe), and vendor prefixes (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). More importantly, the server is named Theaudiodb yet almost none of the tool names reflect music, making the naming misleading about the server's actual scope.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is over the threshold for a well-scoped server, and the sprawl is severe: 4 music tools, roughly 20 data-research tools, 6 prediction-market tools, memory utilities, subscription management, npm scanning, and AI-visibility checks. This is not one coherent server but several servers' tool sets bolted together, with no unifying purpose that justifies the count.

Completeness2/5

For a server named Theaudiodb, coverage is thin: search_artist, search_album, get_artist, and get_album_tracks exist, but there is no search_track, no get_album metadata by ID (only its tracks), no trending/browse-by-genre, and get_artist requires an ID only obtainable by searching first. Meanwhile the 31 non-music tools suggest the real domain is actually Pipeworx data research, making the overall surface feel like an incoherent mix where neither domain is fully covered.

Resources