Skip to main content
Glama

Wynncraft

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description reveals significant behavioral details: return structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), computation of trend and decay, reliance on daily closes, and snapshot gap interpretation. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with a one-line summary, then detailed explanation of outputs and limitations. It is somewhat lengthy but appropriate for the complexity. Every section 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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains all return fields (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) and their meanings. It also covers limitations and data sources, making it complete for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 concise descriptions. The tool description repeats the parameter names and defaults but adds no new semantic details beyond the schema. 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 answers a specific question about edge age and shrinking, and distinguishes itself from the sibling polymarket_edges by focusing on time-series behavior 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 explains when to use the tool (to differentiate fresh vs. aged edges) and provides limits (60-day TTL, snapshot gaps). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some guidance implicit.

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

All Wynncraft 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set is split between Wynncraft game data tools and a large Pipeworx data cluster, and within the Pipeworx cluster there is heavy overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical (the beta is currently identical), ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence do essentially the same thing at different granularities, and six polymarket_* tools cover overlapping prediction-market functionality. An agent would frequently struggle to choose the right tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Snake_case with a mostly verb_noun pattern dominates (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim), and families like polymarket_* and pipeworx_* are internally consistent. However, there is a notable mix of noun-only tools (guild, item_database, leaderboard, player, news) and the server is named Wynncraft while the majority of tools are Pipeworx-branded, which breaks overall coherence.

Tool Count2/5

40 tools is well beyond the borderline range, and the count is inflated by redundancy: multiple ask_pipeworx variants, several overlapping polymarket tools, a memory trio, and subscription management that arguably belong to a separate server. The Wynncraft portion alone would be nicely scoped (~9 tools), but the merged surface feels heavy and unfocused.

Completeness4/5

The Wynncraft side offers solid read coverage of players, guilds, items, leaderboards, news, and online status, which is appropriate for the domain. The Pipeworx side covers lookup, grounded verification, comparison, research, prediction markets, subscriptions, memory, and feedback, leaving few obvious dead ends for the stated meta-purposes.

Resources