Skip to main content
Glama

uooks

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?

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it does not model Kalshi fees, all spreads are gross rather than net tradeable edge, unknown legs are never paired, temporal_alignment null means 'could not be computed,' and returned pairs may still carry compatibility warnings. It also consistently discloses that matches are keyword-based rather than verified by a shared resolution source.

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 it is front-loaded with the core purpose and organized with clear labels like 'TWO MODES', 'RESPONSE', 'SAFETY FIELDS', and 'Codes.' Every major section earns its place because there is no output schema to carry return-value details. Some redundancy exists across the compatibility codes and the final warning, but overall the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description must explain return values and edge cases, and it does so thoroughly: it covers matched spreads, top_spreads_pp entries, flags, skipped_unclassified, low_confidence_pairs, temporal_alignment, fees_note, skipped counters, and compatibility codes. It also explains the meaning of null and unknown values, which is critical for correct interpretation. No essential behavior seems missing.

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, but the description adds meaningful interactions: explicit ticker/slug override the topic-mapped side, both modes run the same matcher, and the topic list maps to 10 named macros. It clarifies that the two explicit parameters are for custom pairings and that the same disclosures apply regardless of mode. This exceeds baseline but does not add substantial new semantics for each individual parameter beyond the schema.

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 first sentence states the exact function: 'Cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question.' It goes on to define two distinct modes and the specific output concept (spreads in percentage points), making the tool's scope and value clear. This differentiates it from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by focusing on cross-venue comparison.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: to compare Kalshi and Polymarket prices for the same event, using either pre-mapped topics or explicit ticker/slug pairs. It also provides effective when-not guidance, warning that 'pre-mapped ≠ tradeable' and that most topics return compatibility_warning today. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state conditions for choosing them instead.

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

All uooks 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tool families overlap at the boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to the same 5,724 tools, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently functionally identical to ask_pipeworx. The Polymarket family is large but each member has a fairly distinct role (research vs. edge scan vs. fill risk vs. tracking); the memory trio and book tools are clear.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_book, create, search_books, resolve_entity, list_subscriptions), but there are notable exceptions: recall/remember/forget are bare verbs without a domain prefix, ask_pipeworx begins with a verb but doesn't follow the noun-object structure, and ai_visibility_check/generate_llms_txt break the pattern. It's readable and mostly predictable, but not uniform.

Tool Count3/5

35 tools is heavy and exceeds the typical well-scoped range, but the server is a meta-platform exposing a universal data router plus prediction-market analysis, book lookup, memory, subscriptions, and several composite research tools. Each tool appears to earn its place, though the set feels sprawling and would benefit from consolidation of the ask_pipeworx variants.

Completeness4/5

Coverage is thorough within the apparent domains: data lookup has multiple tiers (casual, grounded, deep research, claim validation), the Polymarket workflow is complete from research to edge discovery to fill-risk verification, memory has save/retrieve/delete, and subscriptions have create/list/cancel/pull. Minor gaps exist (e.g., book author search by name only via Open Library key, no direct tool for invoking a specific raw data pack), but nothing that would strand an agent.

Resources