Skip to main content
Glama

animequotes

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description far exceeds the annotations by disclosing safety fields, enumerating compatibility codes with meanings, explaining that unknown metric_type/match_subtype legs are never paired, clarifying null temporal_alignment semantics, and stating that spreads are gross because Kalshi's fee schedule is not modeled. There is no contradiction with the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations.

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 and dense, but it is well structured with labeled sections (TWO MODES, RESPONSE, SAFETY FIELDS, Codes, skipped counters) and front-loads the core purpose before caveats. There is some repetition, such as 'BOTH modes' and 'in EITHER mode', but each section carries actionable information and the length is justified by the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema.

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 return values, safety fields, and edge cases on its own — and it does. It covers input modes, response composition, spread[] and top_spreads_pp, compatibility codes, fee treatment, skipped-pair semantics, temporal_alignment null meaning, and the warning that pre-mapped shortcuts are not automatically tradeable. An agent has sufficient context to call the tool in either mode and interpret the results.

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 already documents all three parameters with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: topic shortcuts auto-fetch the matching event on each venue, explicit ticker/slug override the topic-mapped side, and both modes run the same matcher and disclosures. That elevates the value above schema-only documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a clear, specific statement: 'Cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question.' It then explains the two modes and the matcher behavior, making the tool's function unmistakable. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool like polymarket_arbitrage as a contrast, so it stops short of the strongest sibling differentiation.

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 lays out two usage modes — topic shortcuts and explicit kalshi_event_ticker/polymarket_event_slug — and states that both run the identical token-overlap matcher, so an agent knows what behavior to expect. It also provides important when-to-use caution: 'pre-mapped ≠ tradeable' and most topics return compatibility_warning today. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over sibling alternatives.

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

All animequotes 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools occupy blurred boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route questions to overlapping data pipelines, and the Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) heavily overlaps in purpose. Individual descriptions are detailed, but an agent must read long text to avoid misselection, especially when the three anime-quote tools are surrounded by unrelated tool families.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case and many begin with verbs (ask_, search_, resolve_, scan_, compare_, validate_), but several are noun-first or noun-phrase names like entity_profile, bet_research, random_quote, recent_alerts, recent_changes, and pipeworx_trending. There is no chaotic camelCase/snake_case mix, but the convention is not applied consistently enough for a predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy for any single-purpose server, and the vast majority have nothing to do with anime quotes—they are Pipeworx data tools, prediction-market tools, subscription tools, memory tools, and AI-audit tools. For a server named animequotes, only random_quote, search_by_anime, and search_by_character fit the stated purpose, making the count wildly disproportionate.

Completeness3/5

For the apparent anime-quote domain, random_quote, search_by_anime, and search_by_character cover basic lookup but leave notable gaps: no search by quote text, no quote-by-id fetch, no ability to list all series or characters, and no pagination or metadata browsing. The unrelated tools do not fill these gaps, so the anime-quote surface is functional but incomplete.

Resources