Skip to main content
Glama

Ecfr

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them by disclosing compatibility_codes, the meaning of null temporal_alignment, fees_note (Kalshi fees not modeled, spreads are gross), the rule that unclassified legs are never paired, and the caveat that pre-mapped does not mean tradeable. There is no contradiction with 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 it is well-structured with capitalized labels such as TWO MODES, RESPONSE, and SAFETY FIELDS, and it front-loads the core definition. Every paragraph covers a distinct operational concern, so it is dense rather than wasteful, but it is not as concise as shorter exemplar descriptions.

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 fully carries return semantics: leg-by-leg probabilities, spread sign convention, per-entry flags, skipped_unclassified, low_confidence_pairs, temporal_alignment semantics, skipped cross-type counters, and fee caveats. This is unusually complete for a complex cross-venue tool.

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 real mode-level semantics: the topic parameter auto-fetches matching events, explicit ticker/slug parameters override the mapped sides, and both modes run the same token-overlap matcher. This is useful context, though it partly echoes the schema's override language.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence clearly states the tool computes the cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question, giving a specific resource and measurable output. It is clearly organized around topic vs explicit modes, but it never explicitly names sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage to differentiate itself, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explicit usage modes (TWO MODES), explains what the topic shortcuts auto-fetch, and tells the agent when to use explicit kalshi_event_ticker + polymarket_event_slug. It also warns that pre-mapped topics often return compatibility warnings and are not necessarily tradeable. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to prefer this tool over nearby sibling tools.

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

All Ecfr 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 heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-duplicates (beta is currently identical), and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence plus deep_research vs ask_pipeworx create real selection ambiguity. Some clusters like the memory trio and CFR read tools are distinct, but the overall set is confusing.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case and many follow a verb_noun pattern (search_regulations, generate_llms_txt, validate_claim), but noun-first names (entity_profile, title_structure, ai_visibility_check) and prefix families (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) break the pattern. The conventions are mixed but still readable and mostly predictable.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is heavy for any single server, and the bulk of them (Polymarket betting, memory, AI visibility, npm scanning, subscriptions) are unrelated to the server's 'Ecfr' name, which suggests a narrow regulatory focus. This is a kitchen-sink scope, making the count feel bloated rather than well-scoped.

Completeness3/5

The eCFR-specific surface is thin — list_titles, search_regulations, get_section_text, and title_structure cover basic read/search but lack version history, update tracking, or agency-level navigation. Other mini-domains (data lookup, polymarket, subscriptions, memory) are individually fairly complete, but the absence of a unified purpose leaves clear gaps overall.

Resources