Skip to main content
Glama

Weather Gc Ca

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description extensively discloses behavioral traits: it reads from daily snapshots, explains response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), notes limitations (60-day TTL, decay from daily closes, not intraday). This goes well beyond the annotations which already declare readOnly and idempotent.

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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured with clear sections (RESPONSE with subfields). It front-loads the purpose and then provides details. Could be slightly more concise, but overall efficient given the complexity.

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 and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the output format, limitations, and key concepts (snapshot TTL, decay computation), ensuring an agent can correctly interpret and use the tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining default values and clamping behavior (days: default 14, max 30; window: default '1wk') and the concept of snapshot families, providing context beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 provides 'edge persistence and decay telemetry' and answers a specific question about how long an edge has existed and if it's shrinking. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on historical persistence rather than current state.

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 implies usage for analyzing edge history vs. current edges, but does not explicitly list alternatives or state when not to use. It gives a clear context for when this tool is appropriate (e.g., distinguishing fresh vs. old wide edges).

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

All Weather Gc Ca 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

Many tools have distinct purposes (e.g., current_observations vs. climate_daily), but several query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research) overlap in function, all routing questions to a large tool catalog. This can confuse an agent about which to use.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are snake_case but follow no consistent pattern: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx), some noun_adjective (climate_daily), others compound (ai_visibility_check). The mix is readable but not predictable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is high for a server named 'Weather Gc Ca', which implies a focused weather service. Many tools are unrelated to weather (Polymarket, SEC, FDA, etc.), making the count inflated and mismatched to the server's apparent scope.

Completeness2/5

For weather, the server covers alerts, current observations, and climate records but lacks forecasts, radar, satellite imagery, and station listings. While the broader Pipeworx catalog is extensive, the weather-specific surface is incomplete for a dedicated weather tool.

Resources