Skip to main content
Glama

Dwds

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 only declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description then carries an enormous behavioral load beyond that: the semantic distinction between null and temporal_alignment_unknown, the guarantee that 'unknown' legs are never paired, the gross-vs-net fee disclosure, the compatibility_codes[] semantics, and the honest expectation that most pre-mapped topics currently return warnings. Nothing here contradicts 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?

Well front-loaded with purpose and mode logic, and the caps-lock anchors (TWO MODES, RESPONSE, SAFETY FIELDS) make a dense text scannable. But it runs long — the full enumerated compatibility-code list and embedded key names could be trimmed or deferred, pushing toward over-inclusive prose for a 3-param tool.

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 must document the return contract in prose — and it does, comprehensively: top_spreads_pp (Kalshi − Polymarket), compatibility_warning/codes, per-entry flags[], temporal_alignment semantics, fees_note, skipped counters, and low_confidence_pairs. Nothing an agent needs to interpret or safely act on results 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 already covers all three params at 100%, so baseline is 3. The description earns the extra point by adding mode semantics the schema lacks: explicit kalshi_event_ticker/polymarket_event_slug 'overrides the topic-mapped side,' and BOTH modes run the identical matcher with the same disclosures. This is genuine added meaning, not repetition.

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 opening line — 'Cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question' — names a specific verb, resource, and scope, and clearly separates it from sibling Polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, fill risk) by being cross-venue comparison. Purpose is unmistakable even before reading the rest.

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?

Excellent intra-tool usage guidance: TWO MODES are spelled out with when each applies (topic shortcuts vs explicit ticker/slug pairings), and the explicit pair overrides the topic side are documented. The closing caution 'pre-mapped ≠ tradeable' actively steers expectation. However, it never names sibling tools as alternatives or tells an agent when to prefer polymarket_arbitrage/edges instead — cross-tool routing is left implicit.

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

All Dwds 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical; the Polymarket betting tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.) also overlap. The server name suggests a German dictionary, but most tools are unrelated, causing confusion about the set's focus.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names lack a consistent pattern: some use verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), some noun_noun (ai_visibility_check, dwds_frequency), some single words (forget, lemma), and some are acronyms (kwic). This mixed convention makes prediction of tool names difficult.

Tool Count3/5

At 36 tools, the set is large but not extreme. However, it attempts to cover too many domains (German language, prediction markets, AI visibility, npm packages, etc.), making it feel bloated and unfocused for a server named 'Dwds'.

Completeness2/5

For the German dictionary focus implied by the server name, tools are minimal (dwfs_frequency, lemma, snippet) and two are retired. For the broader data platform, there are gaps like no dedicated SEC filing search tool, relying on generic ask_pipeworx. The set feels incomplete for both intended purposes.

Resources