Skip to main content
Glama

Fdic

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description does not contradict them. Beyond that, it adds exceptional behavioral context: fee-model limitations, compatibility code semantics, unknown-leg exclusion rules, temporal_alignment null semantics, skipped-pair counters, and the warning that returned spreads are gross rather than net tradeable edges. This is far more than the annotations alone convey.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The opening sentence is a strong hook and the CAPITALIZED labels help scanning, but the description is a very long, dense wall of text with some redundancy: temporal_alignment_unknown is explained twice, and compatibility flag semantics are restated across the safety-fields and response sections. The information is valuable, but the structure is not concise.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully covers response semantics: leg prices, top_spreads_pp, compatibility warnings/codes, per-entry flags, skipped counters, fees_note, and temporal_alignment behavior. For a complex tool with three optional parameters and no structured output schema, this is as complete as an agent needs in order to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds useful meaning by explaining that topics auto-fetch the matching event on each venue, that explicit ticker/slug parameters override the topic mapping, and that both modes run the identical token-overlap matcher. This is a moderate but real increment over the schema.

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 description clearly states the tool's resource and function: it computes a cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It also gives concrete response elements like top_spreads_pp. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling Polymarket tools (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges), so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 explicitly defines two invocation modes and when each is appropriate: topic shortcuts for ten pre-mapped macro events, or explicit kalshi_event_ticker plus polymarket_event_slug for custom pairings. It also warns that pre-mapped topics are often not tradeable. It does not mention alternative sibling tools or state conditions when one should avoid this tool entirely.

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

All Fdic 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer questions over the same underlying data catalog, and the five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research all analyze prediction-market opportunities. Tools like entity_profile, recent_changes, compare_entities, and resolve_entity also blur together for company research.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names are all snake_case but follow no consistent convention: some are bare verbs (forget, recall, remember, subscribe), some are noun phrases (fdic_failures, entity_profile, pipeworx_trending), and some are verb_noun (fdic_get_institution, generate_llms_txt, validate_claim). Even the fdic_* family mixes noun-only and verb_noun styles.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools this exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many.' The count is inflated by redundant meta-tools (three ask_pipeworx variants, discover_tools, suggest_questions, multiple polymarket scanners) and unrelated purpose tools (generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, ai_visibility_check) that do not belong in an FDIC-named server.

Completeness3/5

The universal ask_pipeworx router gives broad data coverage for almost any factual question, so core lookups are unlikely to dead-end. However, the FDIC-specific surface is thin (only five tools, missing branch/geography/history data), and the server's actual scope is so broad and mixed that no single domain is fully covered end-to-end.

Resources