Skip to main content
Glama

Uuid

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations, including details about history depth (bounded by 60-day TTL), snapshot timing, decay computation (daily closes, not intraday), and a full breakdown of the response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates). No contradictions 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with purpose and key details, then systematically covers response structure and limitations. While somewhat lengthy, each sentence adds value and the structure is logical. Could be slightly more concise but remains functional.

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 the tool's complexity, rich annotations, and lack of output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining the response fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and limitations (TTL, snapshot start). It provides all necessary context for correct usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description restates parameter info (days lookback, window family) without adding new semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema. It does not elaborate on how parameters interact or affect output.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: providing edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily polymarket_edges snapshots. It explicitly answers a specific question about edge duration and trend, distinguishing it from related tools like polymarket_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 gives context for when to use the tool (e.g., differentiating fresh vs. old edges), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. It provides clear use-case guidance without exclusions.

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

All Uuid 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

Most tools have distinct purposes, but several overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly matches ask_pipeworx exactly, ai_visibility_check is a single-entity version of scan_competitor_ai_presence, and multiple Polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk) share fuzzy boundaries. The lengthy descriptions help, but an agent could easily select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority follow a clear verb_noun or noun_phrase pattern (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, validate_claim, generate_uuid, discover_tools). The ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded variants and brand-name tools like pipeworx_trending are minor deviations, but the overall convention is remarkably consistent across 33 tools.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is heavy for a single MCP server, especially one named 'Uuid' where only 2 tools (generate_uuid, validate_uuid) relate to the apparent name. The remaining 31 tools constitute a sprawling data-research platform that would normally be its own server. The count stretches beyond what is typically coherent.

Completeness3/5

As a data-research platform, the surface is quite complete: lookup, grounded answers, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, claim validation, subscriptions, memory, and feedback are all covered. However, for the nominal 'Uuid' domain, only generation and validation exist — missing anything like UUID namespace generation, timestamp extraction from v1/v7, or bulk operations — creating a glaring mismatch between server name and actual tool scope.

Resources