Skip to main content
Glama

Thesportsdb

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details: return structure, trend computation, decay_pp_per_day, snapshot gaps on cache-miss, and TTL bounds. 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 detailed and front-loaded with purpose, but slightly long. Each sentence provides value, though some minor restructuring could improve readability.

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 fully explains the return structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and covers edge cases (gaps, TTL, decay calculation). With simple parameters and strong annotations, it is complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, yet the description adds meaning beyond defaults and clamping: explains the effect of 'days' (lookback) and 'window' (snapshot family), including the possible values and their impact.

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 from daily snapshots. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., polymarket_edges) by focusing on time-series analysis of edge persistence.

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 interpreting edges (fresh vs. old) and mentions limits (60-day TTL, not intraday). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like polymarket_edges for when to use each.

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

All Thesportsdb 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The sports tools are distinct, but the majority of the set has heavy overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve as query/entry-point tools, with ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly identical. The Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also blurs together.

Naming Consistency2/5

The sports subset follows a clean verb_noun pattern (get_player, list_leagues, search_teams), but the rest mixes several naming schemes: ask_pipeworx*, pipeworx_* prefixed tools, polymarket_* tools, one-word verbs (remember, recall, forget), and compound names like scan_competitor_ai_presence. No single consistent convention governs the set.

Tool Count2/5

42 tools is far too many for a server named Thesportsdb; only 10 tools relate to sports data, while 32 belong to an unrelated Pipeworx data/betting/memory platform. The set feels like two or three servers merged into one, making it heavy and unfocused for any single purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the stated sports domain, the surface is partial: you can get teams, players, league tables, and recent/next fixtures, but there are no player statistics, head-to-head records, venue details, or season history — leaving notable gaps. The Pipeworx half is broad but doesn't belong in a server with this name, so the set as a whole is incomplete for its apparent purpose.

Resources