Skip to main content
Glama

Unicef

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

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and no destructive behavior. The description adds important behavioral details: data comes from daily snapshots written on cache-miss, gaps mean no scan, history bounded by 60-day TTL, decay computed from daily closes. 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 informative but slightly verbose, including example scenarios and detailed field explanations. It is well-structured with a clear flow from purpose to response fields to limits, but could be more concise.

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 thoroughly explains the response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and field meanings. It also covers limits and data source, making it complete for an 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.

Parameters4/5

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

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds default values and explains the meaning of 'window' as snapshot family, which goes beyond schema repetition.

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: tracking edge persistence and decay over time. It uses specific verbs like 'answers' and explains the resource (edge telemetry from daily snapshots). It differentiates from sibling polymarket_edges by focusing on historical trends rather than current edges.

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 context on when to use the tool, e.g., distinguishing between a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old edge. It also mentions limits like TTL and snapshot gaps. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternatives among sibling tools.

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

All Unicef 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool families heavily overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve 'find/query Pipeworx data' with blurry boundaries, and the six Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) have overlapping purposes. An agent could easily pick the wrong one without reading every description.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow snake_case verb_noun patterns (list_dataflows, get_data, compare_entities, resolve_entity), and families share prefixes (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*). However, the server is named 'Unicef' while almost all tool names reference Pipeworx/Polymarket, and verb choices vary widely, so the overall set lacks a unified naming story.

Tool Count1/5

34 tools is already on the high side, but the real problem is scope: only 3 tools (list_dataflows, dataflow_structure, get_data) relate to the server's stated UNICEF purpose, while the other 31 are an unrelated grab bag of Pipeworx research, prediction-market betting, memory utilities, npm scanning, and llms.txt generation. This is a severe mismatch between count and purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the UNICEF domain implied by the server name, the surface is minimal: browse, structure, and fetch data cover read-only access but nothing else, and the overwhelming majority of tools are off-domain. If the inferred domain is instead 'Pipeworx + prediction markets', coverage is broad, but then the server name is fundamentally misleading and the UNICEF subset is an incomplete afterthought.

Resources