Skip to main content
Glama

Valorant

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
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description details data sources (daily snapshots), response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), constraints (60-day TTL, decay from daily closes), and behaviors like 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 thorough but verbose; it includes a detailed response format and constraints. While well-structured, it could be more concise without losing key information.

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?

The description comprehensively explains the return format, limits, and data semantics, compensating for the lack of an output schema. It provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand inputs, outputs, and constraints.

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?

All two parameters are fully described in the input schema with defaults and ranges. The description repeats this information but adds no semantic value beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score for full coverage.

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 tracks edge persistence and decay from daily snapshots, answering how long an edge has existed and whether it is shrinking. It distinguishes 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 explains the tool's purpose and contrasts trade implications of fresh vs old edges, providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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

All Valorant 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
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly described as currently identical, and ask_pipeworx_grounded shares the same router. ai_visibility_check is internally wrapped by scan_competitor_ai_presence, discover_tools and suggest_questions both claim 'use this FIRST' as onboarding meta-tools, and entity_profile/compare_entities/recent_changes pull overlapping EDGAR/news/patents data. The detailed descriptions help, but the redundancy is structural, not just cosmetic.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and several families are internally consistent (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, list_*), but the overall set mixes bare verbs (remember, recall, forget, subscribe), verb_noun (get_agent, compare_entities), noun_noun (entity_profile, bet_research, recent_changes), and adjective/compound forms (deep_research, generate_llms_txt, ai_visibility_check) with no dominant convention. Readable, but clearly heterogeneous.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is above the 25+ 'too many' threshold, and the count is wildly mismatched to the server's stated identity: a server named 'Valorant' has only 4 game-related tools while the other 31 form a sprawling data-research/prediction-market/utility toolkit. Even considered on its own terms, the set includes several redundant meta-tools and unrelated subsystems (npm scanning, llms.txt generation, memory) that feel bolted on.

Completeness3/5

The dominant data-research domain is well covered: discovery, single and grounded queries, deep research, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, change feeds, claim validation, and subscription monitoring form a mostly complete surface. However, the server's namesake domain is severely shallow — the Valorant tools only expose static reference data with no match/player/esports coverage — and the prediction-market side lacks obvious write-side or position-management operations.

Resources