Skip to main content
Glama

Google_analytics

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 readOnlyHint annotations by disclosing matching logic, compatibility warnings, fee handling, skipped pairs, temporal alignment caveats, and the fact that returned spreads are gross not net. It also explains why pairs may carry non-empty compatibility_codes even when matches exist, which is exactly the kind of behavioral 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 is long, but almost every sentence carries a distinct caveat or operational detail, and it is organized into labeled segments (TWO MODES, RESPONSE, SAFETY FIELDS). Some points are re-emphasized across paragraphs, which adds length, but the density of critical warnings justifies the size.

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 shape, the description compensates thoroughly by enumerating key response fields, compatibility codes, flags, fee disclosure, and skipped counters. It also addresses edge cases like temporal_alignment_unknown and unclassified legs, making the tool safely callable without prior knowledge.

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%, and the description adds value by explaining how the three parameters interact: topic auto-fetches both sides, while kalshi_event_ticker and polymarket_event_slug override their respective side. The examples in the schema confirm the intended usage, so the description supplements rather than redundantly restates 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 core function: computing the cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It distinguishes its behavior via two modes and repeated caveats about non-equivalent bet shapes, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage.

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?

It gives explicit, actionable guidance: use the topic mode for 10 pre-mapped shortcuts and explicit ticker/slug for custom pairings, and warns that pre-mapped shortcuts are not necessarily tradeable. It does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling tool, but the mode-selection guidance is clear and practical.

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

All Google_analytics 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research both route queries to the same 5,529 tools, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are near-duplicates. Only the small ga_* subset is clearly distinct.

Naming Consistency2/5

Conventions are mixed: GA tools use a ga_ prefix, but the majority use arbitrary names like ask_pipeworx, deep_research, remember, scan_dependency, and polymarket_arbitrage. No consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is heavy, and the vast majority (31) are unrelated Pipeworx utilities rather than Google Analytics functionality. Only 4 tools actually serve the stated GA purpose, making the count inappropriate for the server name.

Completeness2/5

For Google Analytics, the surface is minimal: list properties, metadata, realtime, and run report—no property management, user management, or data mutation. As a Pipeworx toolkit it's broad but lacks full lifecycle coverage for any single domain.

Resources