Skip to main content
Glama

Google_ads

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations by disclosing matching limitations, compatibility codes, temporal alignment semantics, unclassified-leg exclusion, skipped comparison counters, and the gross-not-net fee caveat. It also clarifies that a null temporal alignment means unknown, not aligned. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: core concept, modes, response, safety fields, then caveats. Some points are repeated, such as temporal-alignment ambiguity and both modes sharing the same matcher, so it is not maximally concise. The density is largely justified by the absence of an output schema.

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 the tool's complexity and lack of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains response contents, safety fields, per-entry flags, fee treatment, skipped comparisons, and edge cases. An agent has sufficient information to call the tool correctly and interpret its results.

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 with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining that the topic parameter auto-fetches the matching event on each venue, that explicit parameters override the topic-mapped side, and that both modes run the same token-overlap matcher.

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 identifies the resource (cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket) and the core task: comparing how the two venues price the same resolving question. It also explains two operation modes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_edges, leaving that distinction implicit.

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 provides clear mode-selection guidance: use topic shortcuts for pre-mapped events and explicit ticker/slug for custom pairings. It also cautions that most pre-mapped topics return compatibility_warning today and that pre-mapped does not mean tradeable. It does not explicitly compare itself with alternative sibling tools, so the when-not/alternative guidance is only partially complete.

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

All Google_ads 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The five gads_* tools are distinct, but the majority of the surface is a sprawling research/meta toolkit with many overlapping retrieval entry points: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions, validate_claim, entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, and search_within all cover overlapping information-query territory. An agent could easily misroute a question among the ask_pipeworx variants or between the general-query and company-profile tools.

Naming Consistency3/5

Domain prefixes like gads_, polymarket_, and ask_pipeworx_ provide some structure, but naming conventions are mixed: gads_list_campaigns and list_subscriptions follow verb_noun, while entity_profile, ai_visibility_check, remember, and generate_llms_txt do not. The names are readable and grouped by prefix, but they do not form one consistent pattern.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools this is a large surface, and the count becomes even more problematic because the server is named Google_ads while only 5 of the 36 tools relate to Google Ads. The other 31 tools are a broad Pipeworx data-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription utility set, which makes the server feel bloated and mis-scoped for its advertised purpose.

Completeness2/5

As a Google Ads server, the surface is read-only and incomplete: it can list campaigns and ad groups, get campaign details, pull metrics, and run GAQL, but it cannot create, update, or delete campaigns, manage budgets and bids, or handle keywords, audiences, or ad creatives. The many unrelated data-research tools do not address these core Google Ads management gaps.

Resources