Skip to main content
Glama

Acled

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Polymarket–Kalshi Spread

polymarket_kalshi_spread
Read-onlyIdempotent

Cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. The two venues sometimes price the same outcome 2-25pp apart because their participant pools differ — when the bet shapes are equivalent that delta is a real signal, when they aren't the tool says so. TWO MODES: (1) topic — 10 pre-mapped macro shortcuts ("fed", "btc", "cpi", "gdp", "sp500", "recession", "next_pope", "next_uk_pm", "next_israel_pm", "2028_president") auto-fetch the matching event on each venue. (2) explicit kalshi_event_ticker + polymarket_event_slug for custom pairings — BOTH modes run the identical token-overlap matcher, so the same disclosures apply to both. RESPONSE: each venue's leg-by-leg prices (raw probability 0-1) plus matched spread[].top_spreads_pp (Kalshi − Polymarket) where the same outcome shows up on both sides. SAFETY FIELDS: compatibility_warning is a sentence and compatibility_codes[] the machine-readable form; BOTH can be non-empty on returned pairs, so read them even when matched_pairs>0. Codes: event_subject_mismatch (the two event titles share no subject words — probably not the same question), temporal_mismatch (they resolve in different months), temporal_alignment_unknown (the resolution month could not be parsed on one or both sides — NOT the same as confirmed-aligned; check each event's close/strike date yourself), non_equivalent_bet_shapes, no_candidate_pairs, unclassified_legs_excluded, pairing_unverified (set in EITHER mode whenever pairs are returned: the legs were matched by keyword and word overlap, not a shared resolution source). Each entry in top_spreads_pp carries its own flags[] (temporal_mismatch, temporal_alignment_unknown, event_subject_mismatch, low_token_overlap). A leg whose metric_type or match_subtype is "unknown" is NEVER paired — those comparisons land in spread.skipped_unclassified and, when the wording lined up, in spread.low_confidence_pairs[] for inspection only. temporal_alignment{polymarket_month,kalshi_month,aligned} tells you whether the two events resolve in the same calendar period, in EITHER mode; null means it could not be computed (see temporal_alignment_unknown), not that the two sides align. spread.fees_note is a standing disclosure: Kalshi charges per-contract trading fees, Polymarket does not, and this tool does not model Kalshi's fee schedule — every spread_pp is gross, not a net tradeable edge. skipped_cross_type / skipped_cross_subtype counters expose how many leg-pair comparisons were dropped (cross-type = metric_type mismatch like MoM vs YoY; cross-subtype = inequality mismatch like cum_ge vs cum_le). Real cross-venue spreads are rarer than the macro-shortcut list suggests — most pre-mapped topics return compatibility_warning today; pre-mapped ≠ tradeable.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicNoPre-mapped: fed | btc | cpi | gdp | sp500 | recession | next_pope | next_uk_pm | next_israel_pm | 2028_president
kalshi_event_tickerNoExplicit Kalshi event ticker, e.g. "KXFED-26OCT". Overrides the topic-mapped Kalshi side.
polymarket_event_slugNoExplicit Polymarket event slug, e.g. "fed-decision-in-june-825". Overrides the topic-mapped Polymarket side.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "topic": "fed"
+  },
+  {
+    "topic": "btc"
+  }
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With only readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and exceeds it: it reveals the keyword-overlap matching heuristic rather than a shared resolution source, discloses that fees are not modeled so all spreads are gross not net, defines null semantics for temporal_alignment ('null means it could not be computed, not that the two sides align'), and explains when legs are never paired (unknown metric_type/match_subtype). This is unusually honest about the tool's limitations.

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 long, but it is justified by the tool's genuine complexity: two modes, six compatibility codes, per-entry flag arrays, skip counters, and fee caveats. It is well-structured with labeled sections (TWO MODES, RESPONSE, SAFETY FIELDS, Codes) and front-loads the most operationally critical facts. It loses a point only because the density approaches a wall of text — a few more paragraph breaks or a compact code list would improve scannability.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain the return shape entirely, and it does: leg-by-leg raw probabilities, spread[] with top_spreads_pp as Kalshi − Polymarket, compatibility_warning/codes as parallel human/machine fields, temporal_alignment{polymarket_month,kalshi_month,aligned}, skip counters, and the disposition of unclassifiable legs into skipped_unclassified and low_confidence_pairs. For a two-mode, cross-venue comparison tool with no output schema, nothing an agent needs to interpret results is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine value beyond the schema: it explains the override relationship between the topic shortcut and the explicit ticker/slug parameters, enumerates all 10 topic shortcut values, and gives concrete format examples for both explicit parameters. The mode-interaction semantics are not present in the input schema, so this is a real contribution.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question.' This precisely distinguishes it from siblings like polymarket_edges (single-venue) and polymarket_arbitrage by anchoring on the two-venue comparison. It also clarifies the 2-25pp divergence phenomenon, so an agent knows exactly what the tool computes.

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 clearly delineates TWO MODES — topic shortcuts for pre-mapped macros versus explicit kalshi_event_ticker + polymarket_event_slug for custom pairings — and states that both run the identical matcher. It also gives a strong caveat that 'most pre-mapped topics return compatibility_warning today; pre-mapped ≠ tradeable.' It stops short of naming sibling alternatives explicitly ('use polymarket_edges when you only need one venue'), but the mode-selection guidance is otherwise excellent.

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

All Acled 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially the Pipeworx query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) which all serve similar data retrieval needs. Additionally, entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes overlap in providing company information. Polymarket tools also have overlapping analysis functions. This can cause confusion for agents.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent in style and convention. Some use underscores (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx), others are single words (forget, recall), and many lack a clear verb_noun pattern (pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges). This mixture of naming conventions reduces predictability.

Tool Count3/5

With 32 tools, the count is on the higher side but appropriate given the broad scope covering multiple domains (Pipeworx data, Polymarket betting, ACLED events, npm scanning, memory, etc.). However, some areas have only one or two tools, which feels sparse, and the overall set could be trimmed or better organized.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers many domains but has notable gaps. For ACLED, only search and count tools exist without any update/delete capabilities. For Pipeworx, the tools are heavily read-focused with no apparent write operations. The broad scope makes completeness hard to assess, but some obvious lifecycle operations are missing.

Resources