Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Pflugerville

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it explains fee asymmetries, gross versus net spreads, compatibility warning codes, skipped leg counters, null semantics for temporal alignment, and the token-overlap matching approach. This significantly exceeds what the annotations alone convey and contains no contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Although long, the description is densely informative and carefully structured with clear sections for modes, response fields, safety fields, and caveats. Every sentence adds operational value, and the most important warning about non-tradeable spreads is front-loaded. 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 fully covers return values, safety fields, compatibility codes, skipped leg counters, fee disclosures, and the meaning of null alignment. It also addresses the operational caveats an agent needs to interpret results correctly, making it complete for both tool selection and invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, and the description adds further meaning by listing all ten topic shortcuts, explaining that explicit parameters override the topic-mapped side, and clarifying that both modes run the same matching logic. This goes well beyond the baseline expectation for a tool with full schema coverage.

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 clearly defines the tool as computing a cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question, with two specific modes. It is unambiguous about what it does and the resource it operates on, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as polymarket_arbitrage, so it falls just short of full 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 gives explicit guidance on when to use topic shortcuts versus explicit event ticker/slug pairing, and warns that pre-mapped topics often return compatibility warnings and are not necessarily tradeable. It does not explicitly state when to prefer an alternative sibling tool or when not to use this tool, so it is strong on mode selection but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

All Arcgis Pflugerville 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

The tool set contains multiple overlapping tools for data querying (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, suggest_questions) and prediction market analysis (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread), making it difficult for an agent to distinguish which tool to use. The GIS-specific tools are few and could be confused with general data tools.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some use verb_noun or noun_verb (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, search_datasets), while others are longer phrases (generate_llms_txt, scan_competitor_ai_presence, polymarket_kalshi_spread). Mixed conventions and lack of uniformity reduce predictability.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the count is high for a server ostensibly focused on ArcGIS Pflugerville. Many tools are unrelated to GIS (e.g., prediction market tools, general Pipeworx utilities), making the tool surface feel bloated and poorly scoped.

Completeness2/5

For an ArcGIS server, the coverage is minimal: only three tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) directly support GIS operations. Missing typical GIS capabilities like geocoding, spatial analysis, or editing. The inclusion of many non-GIS tools does not compensate for the lack of depth in the core domain.

Resources