Skip to main content
Glama

Wikipathways

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds significant behavioral details: history bounded by 60-day TTL, snapshot availability from when enabled, and that decay is computed from daily closes of edge_pp_net (not intraday). 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single paragraph that is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently covers the primary question, explains the response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), and includes limitations—all without unnecessary verbosity. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response fields (tracked with edge_pp_net time-series, trend, decay_pp_per_day; expired with lifespan_days; snapshot_dates). It also covers limitations like snapshot TTL and computation details, making the tool's behavior fully comprehensible for an AI agent.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (days lookback, window snapshot family). The description restates these with defaults and limits (max 30 for days, default '1wk' for window) but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: providing edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots. It explicitly answers the question 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?', and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'polymarket_edges' by focusing on time-series history 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 gives strong usage context by explaining the difference between a fresh wide edge and an old one, implying when to use this tool for decay analysis. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives like 'polymarket_edges', but the purpose is clear enough. The detailed output structure helps further 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 Wikipathways 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The tool set is severely mismatched: only 3 of 34 tools (get_pathway, list_pathways, search_pathways) relate to WikiPathways while the rest form overlapping Pipeworx/Polymarket families (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta vs ask_pipeworx_grounded; multiple polymarket_* tools) with unclear boundaries and overlapping purposes.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are highly inconsistent: product-specific names (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending), generic memory verbs (remember, recall, forget), and mixed snake_case patterns with no unifying verb_noun structure. The names do not reflect the WikiPathways domain at all.

Tool Count1/5

34 tools is far too many for a WikiPathways server, which only needs a handful of pathway-related operations. Nearly all tools belong to unrelated domains (SEC, FDA, Polymarket, npm, etc.), making the set feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness1/5

For the stated WikiPathways purpose, only get, list, and search are present—no create, update, or delete operations—leaving obvious lifecycle gaps. The extensive non-WikiPathways tools do not contribute to the server's apparent domain coverage and create dead ends for agents expecting pathway management.

Resources