Skip to main content
Glama

genderize

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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already signal read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, and the description goes far beyond them: it discloses that top_spreads_pp is gross of Kalshi fees, that compatibility_warning/codes can be non-empty even with matched_pairs>0, that unclassified legs are never paired, and that temporal_alignment=null means 'could not compute' rather than 'aligned.' No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with definition and modes, and uses bolded headings like TWO MODES, RESPONSE, and SAFETY FIELDS to organize substantial detail in the absence of an output schema. It is longer than ideal, with some narrative around participant pools and repeated 'in EITHER mode' caveats, but each block earns its place for safe invocation.

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 and a complex response, the description covers the main return structure, compatibility codes, skipped-leg counters, fee disclosure, and null semantics for temporal_alignment. It is complete enough for an agent to interpret warnings and avoid treating gross spreads as net tradeable edge.

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, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by explaining that topic uses ten pre-mapped shortcuts, that explicit ticker/slug override the topic-mapped side, and that both modes execute the same overlap matcher, clarifying interdependencies not visible in 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 opening sentence identifies the tool as computing a cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question, which clearly separates it from single-venue siblings like polymarket_edges. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' and does not name sibling alternatives, so differentiation is inferential 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 Guidelines3/5

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

The description explains how to choose between topic mode and explicit ticker/slug mode, and warns that pre-mapped topics often return compatibility warnings. It does not, however, say when to pick this tool over sibling tools such as polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_edges, leaving alternatives unnamed.

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

All genderize 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

Several tools route the same style of query to the same Pipeworx catalog: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all overlap in purpose, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx. The prediction-market tools also blur together, with bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, and polymarket_fill_risk all covering overlapping analysis territory.

Naming Consistency3/5

The tools are consistently lowercase snake_case, but the naming convention is mixed: some are verb_noun (predict_gender, generate_llms_txt), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts), some are bare verbs (remember, forget), and many share domain prefixes like ask_pipeworx or polymarket_. It is readable, but there is no single predictable pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold where the surface becomes hard to navigate. More importantly, the count does not match the server's apparent genderize identity: the vast majority of tools are unrelated Pipeworx research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription utilities bolted onto a two-tool gender-prediction core.

Completeness3/5

As a broad research assistant, the set is substantial: it covers question routing, grounded verification, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, change feeds, memory, and subscriptions. However, the actual genderize domain is thin—just two prediction tools with no batch, supported-country, or accuracy endpoints—and several unrelated capabilities feel bolted on, making coverage uneven.

Resources