Skip to main content
Glama

Data Europa

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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses extensive behavioral detail: compatibility_warning and compatibility_codes[] semantics, per-entry flags, fee treatment (gross vs. net spread and Kalshi's uncounted fees), skipped_unclassified/low_confidence_pairs behavior, what temporal_alignment null really means, and never pairing unknown-metric legs. This goes far beyond what annotations provide and directly shapes how an agent should interpret results.

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-organized with explicit blocks (TWO MODES, RESPONSE, SAFETY FIELDS, Codes:, fees_note) and front-loaded purpose. Every section carries operational value for a genuinely complex tool, though it is at the upper length boundary and repeats the shortcut list that the schema already provides.

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 full responsibility for explaining return values, and it does: leg-by-leg prices, top_spreads_pp, compatibility fields, per-entry flags, skipped counters, low_confidence_pairs, temporal_alignment semantics, and fees_note. It even warns that compatibility_codes[] can be non-empty on returned pairs, which is exactly the kind of edge case that prevents mis-calls. Nothing essential to correct invocation or interpretation is 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% and each parameter already has a descriptive comment with examples, but the prose adds substantive operational meaning: that both modes run the identical token-overlap matcher, that explicit tickers override the topic-mapped side, and that the same disclosures apply in both modes. That additional semantic layer raises it above the 3 baseline; it stops short of 5 because the schema already documents the core value formats and override behavior.

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 precise purpose: 'Cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question.' It explains the two operational modes, the response layout, and sets this tool apart from Polymarket-only siblings by making the cross-venue nature explicit. The scope is specific enough that an agent can tell it from polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_edges without opening schemas.

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 for when to invoke it: use the pre-mapped `topic` mode for common macros, or explicit `kalshi_event_ticker` + `polymarket_event_slug` for custom pairings, and it emphasizes that both modes run the same matcher with the same disclosures. It also warns that 'pre-mapped ≠ tradeable' and that compatibility_codes[] can be non-empty even when pairs exist. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage, so it misses the full 'when-not-to-use' guidance.

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

All Data Europa 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded are highly similar; deep_research also overlaps with ask_pipeworx. This makes it hard for an agent to distinguish which to use.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent, mixing camelCase (ask_pipeworx, ai_visibility_check) with snake_case (deep_research, compare_entities). Some are verb phrases, others are nouns (groups, tags), with no unified pattern.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools covering EU open data, general data retrieval (Pipeworx), and prediction markets (Polymarket), the count is too high for a coherent, focused server. Many tools are redundant or meta-tools.

Completeness2/5

For a server named 'Data Europa', the EU open-data tools are basic (search, package, groups) lacking update/delete or analysis. The additional Pipeworx/Polymarket tools are extensive but unrelated, making the overall surface incomplete for the implied domain.

Resources