Skip to main content
Glama

Crosswire — Polymarket & Kalshi Arbitrage

by com.crosswire-api

check_resolution_risk

Read-only

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNo'advisory' (default) or 'strict'.advisory
api_keyNoCrosswire 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_aNoFirst 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_bNoSecond leg of the pair to audit (the other venue).
notional_usdNoIntended position size in USD. Optional; sizes the thin-liquidity check against live top-of-book depth.
canonical_event_idNoA 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

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond annotations (readOnlyHint) by detailing the output structure (FSAO with verdict), metering/cost implications, and error handling (coverage reply). It also mentions that the tool returns a 'non-error coverage reply' for uncovered pairs, which is critical behavioral context.

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?

The description is long and slightly repetitive (e.g., pair identification stated multiple times). It front-loads the core purpose effectively but includes detailed parameter information that could be more concise. Still, it is well-structured with clear sections for returns, identification, and edge cases.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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, metering, two identification methods, coverage check), the description covers most relevant aspects: purpose, input methods, output structure, metering, and integration with list_covered_events. It does not detail error conditions beyond coverage, but the output schema likely fills that gap.

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 has 100% coverage, but the description adds significant value beyond schema fields. It explains the two identification methods, provides examples of canonical_event_id namespaces, clarifies optionality and order insensitivity of market parameters, and details api_key usage for metered calls. This helps the agent understand parameter relationships and proper usage.

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: 'Pre-trade safety check for cross-venue event markets... flags resolution mismatches... BEFORE you execute both.' It identifies the specific resource (cross-venue pairs) and action (check resolution risk), and distinguishes from sibling tool list_covered_events by noting it as a prerequisite for fetching fresh ids.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool ('BEFORE you execute both') and provides two methods for identifying the pair. It directs the agent to list_covered_events for fresh ids when needed, and explains what happens if the pair is not covered. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement but implies its role as a pre-trade check.

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

All Crosswire — Polymarket & Kalshi Arbitrage 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one lists available events, the other checks risk for a specific pair. No overlap in functionality.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools use consistent verb_noun snake_case naming (list_covered_events, check_resolution_risk), following a clear pattern.

Tool Count3/5

Only 2 tools for a server focused on arbitrage risk analysis. While the pair covers discovery and checking, the scope feels minimal and could benefit from additional tools like execution or monitoring.

Completeness4/5

The tools cover the core workflow: discover events and check risk for a pair. Minor gaps like not having a tool for individual market details or historical data, but the surface is complete for its pre-trade safety purpose.

Resources