Skip to main content
Glama

Twilio

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds significant behavioral detail: response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), decay computation, snapshot gaps, and limitations, all consistent with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

Long but efficient: front-loaded with key question, then response fields, then limits. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fully details the return structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) and edge cases (gaps, TTL, decay calculation). Complete for effective use.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds defaults, clamps, and the meaning of 'window' (snapshot family), providing extra value beyond the schema.

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 daily snapshots, answering a specific trading question. It distinguishes from siblings like polymarket_edges by focusing on historical tracking.

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?

Describes when to use: to assess edge age and decay. Provides context on trade interpretation (fresh vs old edges) and limits (snapshot TTL, not intraday). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is sufficient.

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

All Twilio 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

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The server is named 'Twilio' but contains only 5 Twilio-specific tools mixed with 31 unrelated Pipeworx tools. An agent must distinguish between Twilio and Pipeworx functionality, and the tool descriptions are clear individually, but the overall set is confusing because the server name implies a focused Twilio service, not a general-purpose data platform with a few Twilio actions.

Naming Consistency2/5

The Twilio tools follow a consistent 'twilio_verb_noun' pattern (e.g., twilio_send_sms, twilio_make_call), while the Pipeworx tools use a separate snake_case convention (e.g., ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, deep_research). The two naming conventions are clearly distinct and do not mix, but the overall set is inconsistent because the server is named after one convention yet the majority of tools follow a different one.

Tool Count1/5

With 36 tools, the count is high, but the critical issue is that only 5 tools are relevant to the Twilio server name. The remaining 31 tools belong to Pipeworx, a completely different domain. This is an extreme mismatch between the claimed server purpose (Twilio) and the actual tool set, making the tool count inappropriate.

Completeness2/5

For a Twilio-focused server, the tool set is very incomplete: it covers only basic SMS sending, call initiation, and listing messages/calls. Missing are phone number management, media handling, conversation features, and other common Twilio operations. The Pipeworx tools are comprehensive for their own domain, but they are irrelevant to the Twilio server's stated purpose, leaving significant gaps.

Resources