Skip to main content
Glama

Unicode

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it reads snapshots, uses daily closes, is bounded by 60-day TTL, and explains data gaps. No contradiction 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is informative but somewhat verbose, with detailed exposition on edge_pp_net and response structure. It could be more concise while retaining essential information. Front-loading is good, but sentences could be streamlined.

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 that no output schema is provided, the description thoroughly covers the return structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and limitations (60-day TTL, decay computation). This is complete for the tool's complexity and context signals.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the role of 'days' as lookback with clamp and default, and 'window' as snapshot family with default. This helps the agent understand parameter semantics fully.

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 built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots.' It answers specific questions about edge duration and decay, and distinguishes itself from sibling polymarket_edges by focusing on historical 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?

The description provides clear usage context: it addresses when to use the tool (to understand edge longevity and decay) and contrasts fresh vs. old edges. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though sibling polymarket_edges is implied.

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

All Unicode 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools overlap significantly: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded serve nearly the same routing purpose, with the beta variant currently identical to the stable one, and deep_research also overlaps for broad research. However, most other tools have clearly distinct functions, and descriptions provide usage guidance, so ambiguity is moderate.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are snake_case and readable, but patterns vary between verb_noun (compare_entities, resolve_entity), noun phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_edges), and bare verbs (remember, subscribe). The pipeworx_ and polymarket_ prefixes are used inconsistently across the set, and the server name 'Unicode' does not align with the tool names.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the server is overloaded for a focused purpose, especially since only three tools relate to Unicode despite the server name. Many Polymarket and Pipeworx tools could be consolidated, and the count exceeds the well-scoped range of 3-15 tools, making the set feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

The server name claims to be about Unicode, but only char_info, escape_string, and unescape_string cover that domain, missing common operations like normalization, case conversion, and encoding validation. For the broader data-access domain the surface is fairly complete, yet there is no tool to fetch a specific pipeworx:// citation URI, leaving cited records unfetchable within the tool set—an obvious gap relative to the stated capabilities.

Resources