Skip to main content
Glama

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.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint already signaling a safe read operation, the description adds substantial behavioral nuance: matching is keyword/word-overlap only, pairing_unverified is always set when pairs are returned, spreads are gross and ignore Kalshi fees, temporal_alignment null does not mean aligned, and unknown metric_type/match_subtype legs are never paired. This is exactly the kind of edge-case context an agent needs.

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 front-loads the core purpose and modes and uses labeled sections such as RESPONSE and SAFETY FIELDS to organize dense warnings. It is long, and some code lists could be tightened, but nearly every sentence carries safety or behavioral context rather than 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return semantics and does so comprehensively: per-venue prices, top_spreads_pp, compatibility codes, skipped counters, temporal_alignment, and fees_note. It also sets honest expectations that most pre-mapped topics return warnings today, so an agent has what it needs to invoke the tool 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?

The schema already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, including the topic options and examples. The description adds value by explaining how the modes interact, namely that explicit tickers override the topic-mapped side and that both modes run the identical token-overlap matcher, which is meaning beyond the field-level 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 computes the cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question, and it identifies two concrete modes. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_edges, but the venue-pairing scope is specific and actionable.

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 mode-selection guidance: use topic shortcuts for pre-mapped macros or provide an explicit kalshi_event_ticker plus polymarket_event_slug for custom pairings. It also warns that pre-mapped topics are often not tradeable, but it does not compare against sibling arbitrage or edge tools, so cross-tool when-to-use guidance is missing.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several clusters of near-duplicates force careful reading: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded overlap heavily; the five polymarket tools share edge-detection and arbitrage territory; and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are easy to confuse. discover_tools, suggest_questions, and pipeworx_trending also compete as discovery/onboarding entry points.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case, so there is surface consistency, but the structural pattern is mixed: verb_noun (list_feeds, read_feed, resolve_entity), noun_verb (ai_visibility_check), noun_noun (entity_profile, polymarket_fill_risk), and bare verbs (remember, forget). Prefixes like ask_pipeworx and polymarket create local order, but no server-wide naming convention holds.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools for a server named 'Gaming Feeds' is heavily over-scoped; only list_feeds, read_feed, and fetch_feed actually serve that purpose. The remaining ~25 tools constitute an unrelated Pipeworx data platform covering queries, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and feedback, making the count feel like a bundled mega-server rather than a focused toolset.

Completeness3/5

For the nominal gaming-feed domain, list/read/fetch plus keyword filtering covers basic consumption, but there is no cross-feed search, feed management, or feed-specific subscription support (subscribe only handles SEC, Polymarket, and FRED streams). The broader data/research surface is comprehensive internally, but that completeness belongs to a different server's purpose.