Skip to main content
Glama

emojihub

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. 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), non_equivalent_bet_shapes, no_candidate_pairs, unclassified_legs_excluded, premapped_pairing_unverified (always set in topic mode when 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[]. 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. 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.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only operation, but the description goes well beyond them by disclosing how pairs are matched, why compatibility warnings can coexist with matched pairs, which legs are never paired, and what each safety code means. This is exemplary behavioral transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but densely informative, clearly organized with labels like TWO MODES, RESPONSE, and SAFETY FIELDS. It front-loads the core purpose and mode selection before moving to output details and caveats, and every sentence earns its place.

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 the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: leg prices, spreads, compatibility warnings, codes, skipped comparisons, temporal alignment, and low-confidence pairs. It also sets realistic expectations about the tool's current reliability.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds value by framing the two modes, explaining that topic shortcuts auto-fetch matching events, and clarifying that explicit tickers enable custom pairings. This exceeds the baseline without being redundant.

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 states a specific purpose—computing the cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question—and clearly separates this from related concepts like arbitrage or tradeability. It is immediately identifiable against sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges.

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, explains both invocation modes, and warns that pre-mapped topics are often not tradeable. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or say 'use X instead when Y', so it falls just short of a full 5.

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

All emojihub 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among the numerous Pipeworx query and prediction market tools (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage vs. polymarket_edges vs. polymarket_fill_risk). Descriptions help differentiate them, so the ambiguity is minor.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names use a mix of verb_noun patterns (e.g., list_subscriptions, validate_claim), phrases (ask_pipeworx, bet_research), and standalone nouns (pipeworx_feedback). While readable, the lack of a single consistent convention makes the set feel less cohesive.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the high side, with many highly specialized prediction market and Pipeworx management tools. The server's name 'emojihub' suggests a narrow focus, but the actual scope is much broader, making the count feel somewhat inflated for its apparent purpose.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a vast domain: factual data retrieval, company profiles, comparisons, claim validation, prediction market analysis, memory, subscriptions, and emoji lookup. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool for simple web search), but overall coverage is comprehensive.

Resources