Skip to main content
Glama

Cfpb

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds substantial behavioral context: matching is keyword/word-overlap based, pairings are flagged as unverified, Kalshi fees are not modeled, spreads are gross not net, and temporal_alignment null semantics are explicitly clarified. It also enumerates safety codes and per-leg flags, going far beyond the 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 long but well-structured, with bold-labeled sections and important caveats front-loaded near the defining statement. Every section contributes safety or interpretation context, though some repetition (e.g., 'EITHER mode' and the same matcher caveat) could be tightened. It earns its length given the complexity, but it is not genuinely concise.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating key response fields (top_spreads_pp, compatibility_codes, temporal_alignment, fees_note, skipped counters), explaining their semantics, and telling the agent how to interpret non-empty warnings and null values. An agent has enough context to call the tool and correctly interpret ambiguous results.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning above the schema: it lists all ten topic shortcuts, defines explicit ticker/slug override behavior, and clarifies that both modes run the identical matcher. The schema merely provides parameter names and examples; the description supplies the actual selection semantics and interaction between parameters.

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 explicitly states the tool computes a cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question, using a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from likely intra-venue alternatives by emphasizing 'cross-venue' and naming both venues precisely.

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 operating modes—pre-mapped 'topic' shortcuts versus explicit ticker/slug pairing—and warns that pre-mapped topics often return compatibility warnings. It does not explicitly reference sibling tools or state when to prefer this over alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

All Cfpb 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
Disambiguation3/5

There are multiple overlapping tools for querying data (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, bet_research) that could confuse an agent, though descriptions are detailed enough to distinguish most. Tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_edge_tracker are closely related, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is highly inconsistent: some follow verb_noun (cfpb_search_complaints, resolve_entity, subscribe, recall), but many use varied patterns like adjectives (ai_visibility_check), imperative phrases (ask_pipeworx, scan_competitor_ai_presence), or compound/specialized names (polymarket_arbitrage, generate_llms_txt). No consistent prefix or convention is used across the toolset.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools spanning diverse domains (prediction markets, SEC filings, CFPB complaints, AI visibility, npm packages, IPC subscriptions), the server is sprawling and over-scoped. Many tools are specialized niche additions (polymarket_fill_risk, scan_dependency, generate_llms_txt) that expand the count without strong cohesion.

Completeness3/5

The toolset covers core areas well (entity resolution, profile, comparison, recent changes, search, claims verification, subscriptions). However, gaps exist: no update/delete for CFPB complaints (read-only), no direct raw SEC filing retrieval, and some lifecycle operations (e.g., editing subscriptions) are missing.

Resources