Skip to main content
Glama

archive

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?

Despite annotations already marking this read-only and non-destructive, the description goes far beyond them: it discloses that compatibility fields may be non-empty even with matched_pairs>0, that null temporal_alignment does not mean aligned, that Kalshi fees are not modeled so spreads are gross, and that unclassified legs are never paired. This gives an agent realistic expectations about both success and failure modes.

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 the length is justified by high tool complexity and the absence of an output schema. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized into modes, response, safety fields, and caveats. There is no filler, though the density makes it harder to scan quickly.

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 carries the full burden of explaining the response shape, and it does so thoroughly: leg prices, top_spreads_pp, compatibility flags, temporal alignment semantics, skipped counters, fees_note, and unclassified-pair behavior are all covered. An agent has enough context to call the tool correctly and interpret 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and includes examples and override behavior, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining hidden semantics: 'topic' auto-fetches a matching event on each venue, explicit ticker/slug creates custom pairings, and both modes run the identical token-overlap matcher with the same disclosures.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question.' It clearly demarcates this from same-venue Polymarket siblings by emphasizing cross-venue comparison and outcome equivalence, and the detailed mode explanation reinforces what the tool does.

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 explains the two invocation modes ('topic' shortcuts vs explicit ticker/slug) and warns that pre-mapped topics often return compatibility_warning today, with 'pre-mapped ≠ tradeable.' It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when to prefer, e.g., polymarket_arbitrage, but it gives strong contextual usage guidance.

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

All archive 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

The ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx / ask_pipeworx_beta / ask_pipeworx_grounded / deep_research) has significant boundary blurring—ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly'—and the six prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) have heavily overlapping edge-detection purposes. Only the archive, memory, and subscription families are cleanly delineated.

Naming Consistency3/5

There are consistent family prefixes (ask_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) and clean pluralized lists (list_files, list_subscriptions), but the full set mixes bare verbs (remember, recall, forget, search), nouns (entity_profile), and varying patterns (bet_research vs compare_entities, search vs search_within vs recent_changes). Readable in clusters, but no single naming convention binds the set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is heavy, and the count is fattened by five distinct product areas—data routing, prediction markets, archive.org access, memory, and subscriptions—that have little to do with each other or with the server name 'archive'. It sits in the 25+ heavy zone even before honoring the mismatch between its name and the sprawl of its purpose.

Completeness3/5

Individual subdomains are well-covered: the memory trio (remember/recall/forget), subscription lifecycle (subscribe/unsubscribe/list_subscriptions/recent_alerts), and archive lineup (search/get_metadata/list_files/wayback_check) are each complete, and extra machinery like pipeworx_feedback and recent_changes shows domain care. But the unifying domain is incoherent—a server named 'archive' that's also a universal data router and prediction-market toolkit—and the scope ends up both bloated and still full of gaps for any one of the intended users (e.g. no archive-item upload, no prediction-market portfolio management).

Resources