Skip to main content
Glama

Excuse

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them. It documents compatibility_codes[], explains that warning fields can be non-empty even when pairs are returned, defines null temporal_alignment semantics, states unknown legs are never paired, and discloses the fee limitation. This is unusually transparent about edge cases.

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 the length is largely justified by the tool's complex safety and compatibility model. It is well organized with labeled sections such as 'TWO MODES,' 'RESPONSE,' and 'SAFETY FIELDS,' and the key caveats are front-loaded. It is not as economical as it could be, but there is little obvious filler.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description carries full responsibility for explaining the response shape. It covers top_spreads_pp, per-entry flags, skipped_unclassified, low_confidence_pairs, temporal_alignment, compatibility fields, skipped counters, and the standing fee disclosure. Edge cases such as unparsed resolution months and unknown metric types are also explicitly handled, making this effectively complete.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds value by clarifying mode semantics: topic auto-fetches a mapped event, explicit ticker/slug creates custom pairings, and both modes use the same overlap matcher. This goes beyond the schema without needing to compensate for missing parameter docs.

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 sentence names a specific operation and resource: 'Cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question.' It goes on to describe the token-overlap matching approach and two pairing modes, making the tool's scope and output unambiguous. This clearly separates it from the Polymarket-only sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly defines the two call modes ('topic' shortcuts vs explicit 'kalshi_event_ticker' + 'polymarket_event_slug') and notes both run the identical matcher. It also provides important caveats: most pre-mapped topics currently return compatibility warnings, 'pre-mapped ≠ tradeable,' and Kalshi fees are not modeled, so the spread is gross rather than net.

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

All Excuse 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) all route to the same underlying 5,708-tool catalog with subtle behavioral differences that are easy to misselect. Entity-focused tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, scan_competitor_ai_presence) also overlap heavily in the data they return, making boundaries fuzzy.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the word-order convention is mixed: verb-first (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, discover_tools) coexists with noun-first (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage, recent_changes). The inconsistent reversal in excuse_generate versus generate_llms_txt further breaks the predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

At 32 tools the set is well past the well-scoped range, and several entries feel like padding: ask_pipeworx_beta duplicates ask_pipeworx, while the seven Polymarket tools and five company-intelligence tools could each be consolidated into fewer distinct capabilities. The broad scope justifies a large surface, but this count makes the server difficult to navigate.

Completeness3/5

The core data-lookup lifecycle (resolve, fetch, ground, validate, research, compare) is well covered, and memory/subscription features round it out. Obvious gaps include no direct tool to read a pipeworx:// citation URI (despite deep_research referencing one), and the excuse_generate tool is an isolated one-off with no supporting tools in its domain.

Resources