Crosswire — Polymarket & Kalshi Arbitrage
Server Details
Cross-venue Polymarket+Kalshi arbitrage: resolution mismatch, void risk & settlement divergence.
- 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 4.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Each tool has a clear, unique purpose: one lists all covered events for discovery, the other performs a detailed risk check on a specific pair. There is no overlap between listing and checking.
Both tools follow the verb_noun pattern consistently (check_resolution_risk, list_covered_events), making their actions and targets immediately clear.
With only two tools, the server is slightly under the typical 3-15 range, but it effectively covers the core workflow of discovery and pre-trade safety check. A few additional tools, such as price retrieval or trade execution, would round it out.
The tool set covers discovery and risk analysis, but for an arbitrage server it lacks execution capabilities, real-time price feeds, or multi-leg coordination. Users must handle the actual trades externally, leaving a notable gap.
Available Tools
2 toolscheck_resolution_riskARead-onlyInspect
Pre-trade safety check for cross-venue event markets (crypto oracle-divergence pairs, metered; World Cup football, free). Flags resolution mismatches, void-rule divergence, scope differences (e.g. 90-minute vs extra-time; matched vs differing strike), settlement-source and -timing gaps, stale data, and thin liquidity between the two Polymarket and Kalshi legs BEFORE you execute both. 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 live pair id from list_covered_events — the metered 'crypto:' inventory rolls daily, so fetch a current id there rather than reusing an old one; the free 'wc26:' World Cup pairs are stable) 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 inventories (free World Cup football + metered crypto pairs) and the coverage cutoff instead of an FSAO.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | 'advisory' (default) or 'strict'. | advisory |
| api_key | No | Crosswire API key (cw_…). Optional. Free for the World Cup graph and the first calls/day on metered crypto pairs; beyond that, metered crypto calls draw down this key's prepaid USDC balance (top up via the x402 /v1/credits/topup endpoint). | |
| 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. Two namespaces: the metered crypto oracle-divergence inventory (shape 'crypto:btc-above:<date>:strike-<n>#above' — $0.02 USDC per call after 3 free calls/day; the daily pair rolls, so fetch a current id from list_covered_events rather than reusing an old one) and the free World Cup football pairs (shape 'wc26:match:<TEAMS>:<date>:result#home|#draw|#away'; the suffix 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. Always get live 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?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that this is a non-destructive safety check. It discloses return format (verdict, FSAO), billing details (free vs metered calls), and coverage behavior, adding significant value beyond annotations without contradiction.
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 thorough but lengthy, with some redundancy (e.g., repeated detail on both market_a and market_b). While well-organized, it could be more concise without losing essential 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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how to use it, what it returns, edge cases (coverage failure), and billing implications. It is complete for effective tool selection and invocation.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds critical context for each parameter, including mode options, api_key billing, market object structure, and canonical_event_id namespace rules. This aids correct parameter usage beyond the schema alone.
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 the tool's function as a 'Pre-trade safety check for cross-venue event markets' and lists specific risks it flags (resolution mismatches, void-rule divergence, etc.). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool list_covered_events, which lists events rather than checking them.
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 advises using the tool 'BEFORE you execute both' trades. It explains how to identify pairs via canonical_event_id or market_a+market_b, and directs users to fetch fresh ids from list_covered_events. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, which would strengthen guidance.
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 across both inventories — the free World Cup football pairs and the metered crypto oracle-divergence pairs (the 'crypto:' namespace is the paid surface: $0.02 USDC per call after 3 free calls/day). Returns the covered canonical events, their per-outcome pair ids (…#home / #draw / #away for football), 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?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so no mutation. The description adds pricing details, snapshot freshness, and the frozen ruleset_sha, providing behavioral context beyond the annotation.
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 a single paragraph that packs many details; it could be split or shortened. While it starts with the main purpose, it later dives into many specifics which may reduce readability.
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 no parameters, an output schema exists, and a sibling tool is present, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, usage flow, output contents, and pricing model. No gaps are apparent.
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?
With no parameters, the description does not need to explain them. Instead, it enriches understanding by detailing the output, which is the main value add since the input schema is empty.
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 the tool provides 'Free discovery of everything check_resolution_risk can audit' and lists the returned data, distinguishing it from the sibling tool by explaining how pair IDs are used as input to check_resolution_risk.
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?
It implies using this tool first for discovery before check_resolution_risk, mentions free vs. paid tiers, and describes the output as input for the sibling. However, it does not explicitly exclude other use cases or state when not to use it.
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!