Crosswire
Server Details
Flags cross-venue resolution mismatches and void risk before execution (Polymarket + Kalshi).
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one for discovering covered events, the other for performing a risk check on a specific pair. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern ('list_covered_events', 'check_resolution_risk'), with verbs that clearly indicate the action and nouns that describe the object.
With only two tools, the count is slightly low compared to typical ranges, but the narrow and focused domain of cross-venue arbitrage auditing justifies this minimal set. Each tool serves a critical and distinct function.
The tool surface covers the core workflow: discovery of covered events via list_covered_events and pre-trade risk assessment via check_resolution_risk. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.
Available Tools
2 toolscheck_resolution_riskARead-onlyInspect
Pre-trade safety check for cross-venue prediction-market arbitrage. Flags resolution mismatches, void-rule divergence, scope differences (90-minute vs extra-time), settlement-source and -timing gaps, stale data, and thin liquidity between Polymarket and Kalshi World Cup markets BEFORE you execute both legs. Returns a machine-readable verdict — execution_verdict: safe / caution / block — inside a full Fungibility & Settlement Audit Object (FSAO) with structured findings, top-level divergence flags, venue rule overrides, fee-adjusted spread, and verdict reasons. Identify the pair by EITHER canonical_event_id (a pair id from list_covered_events) OR market_a + market_b (one Polymarket conditionId + one Kalshi ticker, order-insensitive). If the pair is not covered, returns a non-error coverage reply (covered: false) naming the covered matches and the coverage cutoff instead of an FSAO.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | 'advisory' (default) or 'strict'. | advisory |
| market_a | No | First leg of the pair to audit (either venue; order does not matter). Provide market_a AND market_b together, or use canonical_event_id instead. | |
| market_b | No | Second leg of the pair to audit (the other venue). | |
| notional_usd | No | Intended position size in USD. Optional; sizes the thin-liquidity check against live top-of-book depth. | |
| canonical_event_id | No | A covered pair id — the outcome-suffixed canonical id, e.g. 'wc26:match:MEX-RSA:2026-06-11:result#home' (suffix #home | #draw | #away selects the outcome leg-pair). A bare event id without the suffix is ambiguous and only accepted when market_a + market_b are also given to select the leg. Get valid pair ids from list_covered_events. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds significant detail beyond readOnlyHint annotation: returns verdict in FSAO with structured findings, handles uncovered pairs with non-error reply. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured and front-loaded, but slightly verbose; some details could be streamlined without losing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers inputs, outputs, edge cases, and sibling tool usage. Given the complexity and presence of output schema, the description is fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the two ways to identify the pair, the need for suffix in canonical_event_id, and the purpose of each parameter (e.g., notional_usd for liquidity check).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it is a 'Pre-trade safety check for cross-venue prediction-market arbitrage', listing specific issues it flags. Distinguishes from sibling tool list_covered_events by indicating it uses event ids from that tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says use it 'BEFORE you execute both legs' and describes two identification methods. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_covered_eventsARead-onlyInspect
Free discovery of everything check_resolution_risk can audit: the covered canonical World Cup events, their per-outcome pair ids (…#home / #draw / #away), the Polymarket conditionIds and Kalshi tickers with outcome labels for each pair, match dates, the frozen ruleset_sha pinning the identity graph, the coverage kickoff cutoff, and snapshot freshness. Use a returned pair_id (or a pair's two market ids) as input to check_resolution_risk.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions 'free discovery' and details the returned data (pair ids, conditionIds, tickers, dates, ruleset, cutoff, freshness), aligning with the readOnlyHint annotation and providing context beyond it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is informative but slightly verbose; it could be more concise without losing meaning, but it is well-structured and front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on tool purpose and usage without needing to detail return values, and it covers all necessary aspects for a listing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no parameter details, but this is acceptable per the baseline for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool lists covered canonical World Cup events and their associated identifiers, distinguishing it from its sibling 'check_resolution_risk' by providing inputs for that tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises using the returned pair_id or market ids as input to 'check_resolution_risk', guiding the agent on when and how to use this tool in conjunction with its sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!