Skip to main content
Glama

Yc Rejection

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?

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, which the description reinforces by stating it reads snapshots. The description adds important behavioral details: decay calculation from daily closes, data gaps due to cache-miss days, and the expiration logic for opportunities that disappeared. No contradiction 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 relatively long but well-structured, starting with the core purpose and then detailing response fields and limitations. Every sentence adds value, though some technical details could be streamlined for brevity. The front-loading is effective.

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 absence of an output schema, the description comprehensively covers the return values: `tracked[]`, `expired[]`, and `snapshot_dates[]`, explaining key fields like `trend`, `decay_pp_per_day`, and `lifespan_days`. It also addresses limitations and data gaps, making the tool's capabilities and constraints fully understandable.

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?

The input schema already describes the two parameters with defaults and ranges (100% coverage). The description adds context for `days` (lookback, default 14, max 30) and `window` (snapshot family, default '1wk'), but does not elaborate beyond what the schema provides. It also explains the response structure, which compensates slightly for the lack of an 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?

The description clearly specifies the tool's purpose: providing edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots. It answers specific questions about edge age and decay, distinguishing it from sibling tool polymarket_edges, which likely just lists raw 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 states when to use the tool (to determine how long an edge has existed and if it is shrinking) and implies when not to use it (for intraday data, as decay is from daily closes). It also mentions limitations like the 60-day snapshot TTL, but does not explicitly list alternative tools.

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

All Yc Rejection 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
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., multiple ask_pipeworx variants and several Polymarket analysis tools. The presence of meta-tools like discover_tools and suggest_questions adds confusion. Distinguishing between tools like entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes requires careful reading of descriptions.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: some use snake_case (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx), others use underscores (compare_entities, deep_research). Prefixes like pipeworx_ and polymarket_ are inconsistently applied, and there is no clear verb_noun pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools, the server is heavily over-scoped for its name 'Yc Rejection'. Only one tool directly relates to that domain. The rest constitute a full data platform, making the count far too high for the implied narrow purpose.

Completeness1/5

For a server named 'Yc Rejection', the tool set is severely incomplete: only one tool generates rejection text. There are no tools for application management, review, or related tasks. The actual completeness of the underlying platform is irrelevant given the misleading name.

Resources