Skip to main content
Glama

Trove

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds important behavioral details: 60-day snapshot TTL, daily close computation, and response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates). 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is thorough but somewhat verbose. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear structure, but some details (e.g., full response field explanations) could be condensed without losing meaning.

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?

Given two parameters, full schema coverage, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description provides complete context: response fields, limitations (TTL, daily closes), and parameter behavior. The agent can select and invoke this tool accurately.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by specifying defaults (14 days, '1wk') and constraints (clamp 2-30, available window families), and explains the 'window' concept as a snapshot family.

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: persistence and decay telemetry for polymarket edges. It answers a specific question ('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 provides strong usage context, including an example distinguishing fresh vs. old edges and parameter defaults. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions, but the context from sibling tools and the detailed explanation compensate.

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

All Trove 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
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research all answer questions; entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes all cover company data). Descriptions provide distinctions, but an agent can easily misselect, especially between the Pipeworx query tools.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow mixed conventions: some use verb_noun (list_subscriptions, unsubscribe), others use descriptive phrases (ai_visibility_check, polymarket_arbitrage) or nouns (deep_research, entity_profile). No consistent pattern, making it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools covering diverse domains (data lookups, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions), the server feels overloaded. The scope would be better served by splitting into smaller, focused servers (e.g., data query, prediction market, memory). Many tools are peripheral to a core purpose.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is fairly comprehensive within its domains: CRUD for memory (remember/recall/forget), subscription management, extensive data query options, and prediction market analysis. Minor gaps exist (no update memory, no direct trading), but agents can work around them.

Resources