Skip to main content
Glama

Wmata

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. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent; description adds valuable detail: data comes from daily snapshots, bounded by 60-day TTL, decay based on daily closes, not intraday, and notes that gaps mean no scan occurred. 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?

Well-structured with separate sections for response fields and limits, but somewhat verbose. Still efficient given the complexity of the telemetry data.

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?

Fully covers what the tool does, its response fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), edge cases (gaps, TTL), and parameter meaning. No missing information for a tool with 2 params and no output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers both parameters fully. Description adds context for days (explains default and clamp) and window (snapshot family). It also explains the response structure in detail, compensating for lack of output schema.

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 clearly states it tracks edge persistence and decay telemetry, answering a specific question about edge existence and trend. Distinguishes from sibling polymarket_edges by focusing on historical time-series rather than current snapshots.

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?

Provides context on when to use (e.g., differentiating fresh vs old wide edges) and explains limits like TTL and snapshot gaps. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or specify when not to use.

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

All Wmata 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but the server mixes WMATA transit tools (bus routes, rail predictions) with unrelated general-purpose tools (deep_research, polymarket_arbitrage). This broad scope can confuse an agent expecting a focused transit server.

Naming Consistency2/5

All names use snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern. Many are noun_noun (bus_routes, rail_lines) or verb_properNoun (ask_pipeworx), and the naming conventions vary wildly across different domains (e.g., validate_claim vs entity_profile vs scan_dependency).

Tool Count2/5

41 tools is excessive for a WMATA transit server. The vast majority of tools (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, polymarket_*) are not related to WMATA, making the tool surface bloated and unfocused for its stated purpose.

Completeness3/5

The WMATA-specific tools cover core bus and rail operations (incidents, predictions, routes, stations). However, gaps like fare info and elevator status are missing. The non-transit tools are extensive but irrelevant to the server's apparent focus.

Resources