Skip to main content
Glama

Valorant

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Polymarket Edges

polymarket_edges
Read-onlyIdempotent

Scan top Polymarket markets and return opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price. Built for "what should I bet on today" — agents discover opportunities without paging hundreds of markets. FIVE MODEL FAMILIES grouped into three response segments under by_segment: (1) MODEL_DRIVEN — crypto_price (lognormal barrier from 90d FRED log-returns) and news_momentum (GDELT 7d/21d article-volume ratio, soft signal w/ halved Kelly). (2) STRUCTURAL_ARBITRAGE — partition_overround on mutually-exclusive events; per-leg favorite-longshot bias correction with per-sport α (tennis 1.02, soccer 1.10, MMA 1.15, default 1.0); placeholder-slug filter drops will-person-X / will-team-Y / will-manager-Z / will-someone-else- backstops; partitions with >20% placeholder fraction skipped entirely. (3) CONCENTRATED_LONGSHOT — basket trade when one leg ≥75% AND ≥2 longshots ≤8% AND portfolio return ≥25:1; rare-by-design (gates relaxed Run 8 from prior 85%/5%/50:1). EVERY OPPORTUNITY carries edge_pp_net (after slippage), kelly_fraction + kelly_fraction_half (capped at 0.25), market.liquidity, market.spread_pp, market.volume, plus a 24h-move warning ("Market moved X.Xpp in 24h") when the recent move alone exceeds the edge — your edge may already be in the price. TRADEABLE-EDGE KNOBS: min_liquidity / max_spread_pp drop opportunities where edge isn't realizable; min_partition_leg_kelly filters partitions by best per-leg Kelly. RESPONSE TOP-LEVEL: by_segment{model_driven,structural_arbitrage,concentrated_longshot}, fed_candidates/fed_note (Fed bets surface here, excluded from ranking — 1m-T vs EFFR signal is unreliable at meeting-month horizons without paid OIS/SOFR-futures data), and _diagnostics{concentrated_longshot:{...funnel counters},category_counts,filter_skips} so callers can see WHY a segment is empty (top-N stale, all candidates failed gates, knob dropped them). Cached 1h at the KV level keyed on all knobs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoTop N edges to return after ranking. Default 10, max 25.
windowNoPolymarket volume window to filter markets. Default 1wk.
min_kellyNoMinimum half-Kelly fraction (as decimal, e.g. 0.005 = 0.5% of bankroll) to include single-leg opportunities. Default 0 (no filter). Skips opportunities that are too small to bet sensibly even if the edge is large.
min_edge_ppNoMinimum |edge| in percentage points to include (default 0.5). Edge is evaluated NET of slippage.
slippage_ppNoAssumed execution slippage in percentage points per leg (default 0.3). Subtracted from raw |edge| before ranking and Kelly sizing. Polymarket has zero trading fees as of 2024 but bid/ask + thin depth typically eats 20-50bp per trade. Bump for very thin partitions; drop to 0 if you have a smarter fill model.
max_spread_ppNoTradeable-edge filter. Maximum bid/ask spread in percentage points on the representative market. Default null (no filter). Set to 2 to require tight books — anything wider eats most plausible edges.
min_liquidityNoTradeable-edge filter. Minimum $ liquidity on the representative market (or for partition_overround, on at least one top_leg). Default 0 (no filter). Set to 5000 to drop thin-book opportunities where executing the edge would walk the book past breakeven.
category_filterNoComma-separated list to restrict the output: "model_driven" (crypto_price + news_momentum), "structural_arbitrage" (partition_overround), "concentrated_longshot". Combine like "model_driven,structural_arbitrage". Default: all.
min_partition_leg_kellyNoMinimum BEST per-leg half-Kelly fraction across a partition_overround opportunity's top_legs (or longshot_basket legs). Default 0 (no filter). Partition arbs always return kelly_fraction_half=0 at the parent level by design (basket trades don't compose to single-leg Kelly), so min_kelly never filters them — this knob applies to the per-leg Kelly inside top_legs instead. Use to suppress thin partitions whose individual leg edges aren't worth the per-leg slippage cost.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false. Description adds extensive detail: explains five model families, caching (1h at KV level), response segments, diagnostics for empty results, and nuance like fed_candidates exclusions. 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?

Description is verbose, covering many details in a dense paragraph. While well-structured with sections, it could be more concise. Front-loaded with purpose, but the length may overwhelm agents.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), description covers output structure, edge metrics, segment definitions, diagnostic fields, and caching. It explains why fed bets are excluded and how to interpret empty results. Very complete.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description provides general context (e.g., knobs for tradeability) but does not significantly add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description explicitly states scanning Polymarket markets for opportunities where Pipeworx disagrees with market price. Verb is 'scan', resource is 'Polymarket markets', and the unique value (disagreement) is clear. Differentiates from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on model-driven edge detection.

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?

States 'Built for "what should I bet on today"' clearly indicating usage context. Describes tradeable-edge knobs for filtering. Although it doesn't explicitly list sibling alternatives, the purpose is specific enough to guide appropriate use.

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