Skip to main content
Glama

Zendesk

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds significant behavioral detail: response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), meaning of negative values, decay computation, and limitations (60-day TTL, snapshot start). 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

Description is relatively long and dense, mixing tool purpose with detailed response structure. While informative, it could be more concise by separating overview from response details.

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 having no output schema, description thoroughly explains response fields (tracked with time-series and trend, expired with lifespan, snapshot dates) and tool limitations. Provides sufficient context for an agent to correctly 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 description coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. Description repeats the same information without adding new semantic depth beyond restating defaults and options. 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?

Description clearly states the tool tracks edge persistence and decay using daily snapshots, answering how long an edge has existed and if it's shrinking. It distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on historical trends and decay computation.

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 (to understand edge history and decay). Does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the description implies differentiation from the current-edge snapshot tool.

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

All Zendesk 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, especially the Pipeworx query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) which all provide factual answers, making it unclear which to use. The set also mixes Zendesk tools with a large number of prediction market and data tools, creating confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: Zendesk tools use 'zd_' prefix, Pipeworx tools use various prefixes like 'ask_', 'bet_', 'compare_', etc., and some are named with full words. There is no uniform pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is high for a server named 'Zendesk', especially since only 5 are Zendesk-specific. The majority are unrelated to Zendesk, indicating the tool count is inappropriate for the implied purpose.

Completeness1/5

For a Zendesk server, the tool set is severely incomplete, offering only basic CRUD operations (get, list, search for tickets and users). Missing essential Zendesk features like ticket creation, update, delete, or macros, while containing many irrelevant tools from other domains.

Resources