Skip to main content
Glama

Tomtom

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?

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, which the description does not contradict. The description adds extensive behavioral details: limits on history depth (60-day TTL), decay computation from daily closes, and explains the response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates). This goes well 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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, then details the response fields, and ends with limits. It is front-loaded with the core question it answers. However, it is somewhat verbose, especially in the response enumeration, which could be more concise. Overall, it earns its length given no output schema.

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 describes the return structure, including fields like tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[] and their subfields (e.g., first_seen, trend, decay_pp_per_day). It also explains limits (60-day TTL) and caveats (decay from daily closes). This is complete for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates defaults and options already in the schema (e.g., days default 14 clamp 2-30, window options 24hr|1wk|1mo). It adds minimal new semantic meaning beyond the schema, just rephrasing in context.

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 defines the tool's purpose: providing edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily polymarket_edges snapshots. It uses specific verbs like 'answers how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking' and distinguishes itself from siblings 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?

The description gives clear context on when to use this tool (to differentiate between a fresh edge and an old one that persists) and provides usage context with lookback and window parameters. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools but the differentiation is implied by the focus on historical persistence vs. current snapshots.

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

All Tomtom 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
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical behavior), and ask_pipeworx_grounded are variants of the same router, and the six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research all operate in the same prediction-market space. The extremely detailed descriptions help an agent differentiate, but misselection risk remains real.

Naming Consistency4/5

Snake_case is used consistently and most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (resolve_entity, validate_claim, discover_tools), with predictable polymarket_ and pipeworx_ family prefixes. Minor deviations exist — entity_profile and recent_alerts are noun/adjective phrases, generate_llms_txt embeds a file extension, and single-word verbs (remember, route, geocode) break the strict pattern — but overall naming is coherent.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, the server exceeds the comfortable range and bundles many unrelated domains: data lookup, prediction markets, geocoding/navigation, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, npm scanning, and llms.txt generation. While every tool has a distinct purpose, the surface is heavy and would benefit from splitting into focused servers.

Completeness4/5

Each major cluster has strong lifecycle coverage: data lookup (router, grounded mode, deep research, discovery), company research (resolve, profile, compare, changes), prediction markets (research, arb, edges, fill risk, cross-venue spread), memory (remember/recall/forget), and subscriptions (subscribe/list/unsubscribe/alerts). Minor gaps exist — no direct Polymarket order placement and no explicit tool for fetching pipeworx:// URIs (left to resources) — but agents can accomplish the stated purposes.

Resources