Skip to main content
Glama

Giantbomb

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

This description goes far beyond the annotations. It discloses the token-overlap matching approach, that both modes produce identical disclosures, that unknown metric_type/match_subtype legs are never paired, that temporal_alignment null means 'could not be computed' rather than 'aligned,' and that spreads are gross because Kalshi fees are not modeled. It also explains the safety codes and warns to read warnings even when matched_pairs>0, which is exactly the behavioral nuance 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 is very long, but it is organized into clearly labeled sections (TWO MODES, RESPONSE, SAFETY FIELDS) and almost every sentence carries operational meaning. There is some redundancy, such as the repeated explanation that legs are keyword/word-overlap matched, and the sheer length could be streamlined. Still, it is front-loaded with the core purpose and mode selection before diving into safety details.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, this description is exceptionally complete. It covers modes, parameter interaction, response shape, safety fields, compatibility codes, temporal alignment semantics, fee caveats, and which comparisons get skipped. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly and interpret ambiguous results, which is essential for a cross-venue comparison tool with many caveats.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by explaining the relationship between the parameters: topic is pre-mapped, kalshi_event_ticker and polymarket_event_slug override the topic-mapped sides, and both modes use the same matcher. It also enumerates the exact topic shortcut values and gives example formats for the explicit parameters, enriching what the schema alone provides.

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 immediately states a specific verb+resource: it computes the cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It further distinguishes this from related tools by naming the two participants, the spread metric, and the custom-pairing capability, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage without opening schemas.

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 guidance on when to use each mode: 'topic' for 10 pre-mapped macro shortcuts and explicit ticker/slug for custom pairings, with the note that both modes run the same matcher. It also warns that real cross-venue spreads are rarer than the shortcut list suggests and that pre-mapped topics often return compatibility warnings. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage, but it clearly defines the main choice an agent faces.

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

All Giantbomb 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

C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool families have blurry boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all route into the same underlying catalog with only subtle differences, and the six polymarket_* tools overlap heavily (edge scanning vs. fill-risk vs. arbitrage vs. cross-venue spread). Compounding this, the server is named 'Giantbomb' but only 7 of 38 tools relate to that domain, so an agent cannot predict what this server does from its name.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names are snake_case, which helps, but the verb pattern is inconsistent: verb_noun (list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, validate_claim), bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), noun-prefix subjects (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges, recent_changes), and even a versioned name (ask_pipeworx_beta) that breaks its own family's pattern. There is no predictable naming scheme an agent could use to guess a tool's name.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is well past the 25+ 'too many' threshold, and the count is split across two unrelated concerns: ~7 Giant Bomb tools (several explicitly marked 'API offline as of 2026-05') and ~31 tools for a Pipeworx data-research and Polymarket-trading platform. The number is not merely heavy; it serves no single coherent purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the declared Giant Bomb domain, the surface is incomplete (missing videos, franchises, reviews, people, and other known resource types) and largely dead since the underlying API is offline. The Pipeworx half is comparatively complete with routing, grounded answers, research, memory, subscriptions, and feedback, but that coverage is attached to the wrong server identity and does not fill the gaps in the claimed purpose.

Resources