Skip to main content
Glama

Bls

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.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint already covering the safety profile, the description adds substantial behavioral disclosure: compatibility warnings can be non-empty even with matched pairs, unknown legs are never paired, temporal_alignment null means unknown rather than aligned, fees are gross and not modeled, and skipped comparison counters are explained. 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 description is dense but well organized: purpose, modes, response, safety fields, and skipped-count semantics are clearly labeled and front-loaded. It is long, and the prose is heavy in places, but almost every sentence carries a distinct operational caveat or rule, so the length is mostly justified.

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 documenting return semantics, and it does so comprehensively: top_spreads_pp, per-entry flags[], temporal_alignment, fees_note, low_confidence_pairs, and skipped counters are all explained. The main gap is that it never states what happens if no parameters are supplied, even though the schema marks all parameters as optional.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description adds meaningful semantic value by defining the two mutually exclusive call modes, listing the ten topic shortcuts, and clarifying that explicit ticker/slug override the topic-mapped side while both modes run the same matcher. It does not add new syntax or format details, but it meaningfully disambiguates how the parameters interact.

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 by stating exactly what the tool computes: the cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It further distinguishes itself by defining the two access modes and noting that the tool detects when bet shapes are not equivalent, so an agent can tell this apart from other Polymarket or Kalshi tools.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use each mode, including the pre-mapped topic shortcuts and the explicit ticker/slug pairing, and warns that pre-mapped topics are often not tradeable. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when NOT to use this tool in favor of one of them, so it stops short of a full exclusion list.

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

All Bls 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 ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded trio are nearly indistinguishable, with beta currently behaving identically to the stable version. Entity_profile, recent_changes, and compare_entities also overlap heavily as multi-source company research tools, and the six polymarket tools create additional boundary confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

Most tools use snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern: some are imperative phrases (ask_pipeworx, bls_get_series, resolve_entity), while others are noun phrases (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges, recent_alerts). Even within the bls_* family, bls_latest breaks the verb pattern established by bls_get_series and bls_search.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is well above the 25+ threshold for 'too many', and the server is named Bls yet only four tools actually serve BLS data. Most of the remaining tools cover unrelated domains like Polymarket arbitrage, memory, feedback, and general Pipeworx routing, making the count feel inflated for the apparent purpose.

Completeness3/5

The four BLS-specific tools cover search, browse, historical series fetch, and latest value, but there is no multi-series fetch or series metadata detail, which is a notable gap for a BLS-focused server. The broader Pipeworx toolset is extensive, but the lack of a coherent stated domain makes completeness hard to evaluate as a unified surface.

Resources