Skip to main content
Glama

Wikidata

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, providing a baseline. The description adds significant behavioral context: it reads snapshots, returns tracked/expired arrays, explains gaps due to cache misses, TTL limits, and decay calculation. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then detailing response fields and limitations. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds information. Front-loaded with the key question the tool answers.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains all three response arrays (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) with subfields and semantics. It also covers limitations (TTL, snapshot start, decay calculation). The tool is complex, and the description is complete for effective usage.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by specifying defaults (14 days, '1wk'), clamp ranges (2-30), and clarifying the 'window' parameter as snapshot family. This information aids correct parameter selection.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: providing edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots. The verb 'answers' and the specific question 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' make the purpose explicit. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like polymarket_edges or polymarket_arbitrage, though the context implies differentiation.

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 context on when to use the tool: when needing to understand edge duration and decay. It gives a concrete example ('a fresh wide edge vs. a 3-week-old wide edge'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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

All Wikidata 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set is extremely heterogeneous and overlapping. Multiple tools serve nearly identical purposes (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions), and entity-related tools (get_entity, get_wikidata_facts, entity_profile, compare_entities, resolve_entity) have unclear boundaries. The server is named Wikidata but only 3 of 34 tools actually relate to Wikidata, causing confusion about which tool is appropriate.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix multiple conventions: verb_noun (get_entity, search_entities, list_subscriptions), noun phrases (polymarket_edges, entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback), and inconsistent suffixes (_beta, _grounded). The verbs used are vague and not part of a coherent pattern (get, search, ask, discover, resolve, scan, validate, generate, remember, recall). The naming is readable but lacks a predictable system.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is high for a server with a focused name like Wikidata, and nearly all tools belong to unrelated domains (Pipeworx data routing, Polymarket betting, memory management, subscriptions, AI visibility). The count appears bloated and scattered rather than well-scoped; most tools could be split into separate servers.

Completeness2/5

For a Wikidata server, the coverage is minimal: only search, get by ID, and human-readable facts are present, with no SPARQL query support or property-level access. The majority of tools address Pipeworx's broad data catalog, leaving the advertised Wikidata purpose severely under-served. The surface is complete for a different domain but incomplete for the stated one.

Resources