Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Peterborough

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already signal readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes far beyond them: it documents token-overlap matching, pairing_unverified for every returned pair, compatibility_codes semantics, gross-vs-net fee caveats, temporal_alignment null semantics, and skipped-cross counters. No contradiction with 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 definition is long, but it is organized with clear caps-labeled sections (RESPONSE, SAFETY FIELDS, Codes) and every section contributes caveats or output-field semantics. Some redundancy exists, such as repeated emphasis on 'BOTH modes', but the complexity of the tool justifies most of the length.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so in detail: leg prices, top_spreads_pp, per-entry flags, skipped_unclassified, temporal_alignment, and fees_note are all covered. The main gap is that it never states the precondition that a caller must supply either topic or both explicit identifiers, leaving the no-required-params schema ambiguous.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds relational meaning: topic is an auto-fetch macro shortcut, explicit kalshi_event_ticker and polymarket_event_slug override the topic-mapped side, and both modes run the same matcher with the same disclosures. This is genuinely informative beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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?

States a specific function: compute cross-venue spreads between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It also enumerates two distinct input modes (topic shortcuts vs explicit tickers), which sets it apart from single-venue sibling tools like polymarket_edges or polymarket_arbitrage.

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?

Clearly explains the two invocation modes and when each is appropriate: pre-mapped topic shortcuts vs explicit custom pairings. It also warns that pre-mapped topics often return compatibility_warning today, so the user knows not to assume tradeability. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say 'use X instead', so comparative guidance is slightly incomplete.

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

All Arcgis Peterborough 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tool families overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route questions to the same underlying 5,767 tools with significant functional overlap. Polymarket tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk) also have blurred boundaries around edge detection and fill risk. The ArcGIS tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) are distinct, but the non-ArcGIS tools dominate and create confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

The naming conventions are inconsistent across the set. Some tools use verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, query_layer, search_datasets, list_subscriptions), some use bare verbs (forget, recall, subscribe, unsubscribe), and others use descriptive multi-word names (polymarket_fill_risk, scan_competitor_ai_presence, generate_llms_txt). The ask_pipeworx family and polymarket_* family are internally consistent, but the overall set mixes styles without a clear pattern.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy for a server that appears to be an ArcGIS data server but includes a massive Pipeworx data-research and prediction-market subsystem. The ArcGIS portion only has 3 tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer), while the rest form a separate general-purpose research/betting toolkit. The count feels bloated and unfocused relative to the server's stated name.

Completeness2/5

The ArcGIS surface is incomplete: search_datasets, layer_info, and query_layer offer no update/create/delete or metadata exploration beyond one layer at a time. The Pipeworx portion is broad but lacks clear lifecycle coverage for subscriptions (create/cancel works, but no update), and the memory tools (remember/recall/forget) are peripheral. The set feels like an accidental aggregation of unrelated domains rather than a complete surface for one purpose.

Resources