Skip to main content
Glama

Guidetopharmacology

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description is dense with behavioral disclosure: it explains the matching method (keyword/word overlap, not shared resolution source), the null semantics of temporal_alignment, the gross-not-net nature of spreads (fees_note), and the skipped_cross_type/subtype counters. This goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations and helps the agent interpret results correctly. 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?

At roughly 300 words, it's long, but it's structured with labeled sections (TWO MODES, RESPONSE, SAFETY FIELDS, codes, fees_note, skipped counters) and each sentence adds a distinct piece of information. It isn't wasteful, though it could be tightened; for a tool with many caveats this density is justified.

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 the response, and it does: leg-by-leg raw probabilities, top_spreads_pp with per-entry flags, skipped_unclassified, low_confidence_pairs, temporal_alignment, and fees_note. The safety fields and code list are fully enumerated, giving an agent what it needs to invoke the tool and interpret the result.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with examples and descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds meaning by explaining that the two explicit parameters 'Override the topic-mapped' side and that both modes run the identical token-overlap matcher, which clarifies parameter relationships not obvious from the schema alone.

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 function: 'Cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question.' That's a specific resource with a clear computation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_edge_tracker; it relies on the tool name and the two named venues for implicit distinction.

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 describes two usage modes ('topic' shortcuts and explicit 'kalshi_event_ticker' + 'polymarket_event_slug') and when each is appropriate. It also warns that 'pre-mapped ≠ tradeable' and that most pre-mapped topics return compatibility_warning, providing a practical caveat. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools to use instead, so the when-not-to-use guidance is limited to caveats rather than direct routing.

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

All Guidetopharmacology 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) that differ only subtly, and a large set of prediction market tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.) that can be easily confused. Entity tools like entity_profile, recent_changes, and compare_entities also overlap significantly. An agent would struggle to pick the right tool without careful reading.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix snake_case (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, forget) and descriptive phrases without a consistent verb_noun pattern. Some start with verbs (compare, generate, scan) while others are nouns or compound phrases (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_fill_risk). This inconsistency makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

With 35 tools, this MCP server is overly large and covers many diverse domains (data querying, prediction markets, pharmacology, npm scanning, brand visibility, etc.). Typically, a well-scoped server has 5-15 tools; 35 is excessive and suggests a lack of focus, making it unwieldy for an agent to manage.

Completeness2/5

Despite the large number of tools, the server has notable gaps. For example, the pharmacology section only offers search and interaction tools but no create/update/delete. The memory tools are limited to save/recall/forget. Many meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions) exist but add little substance. The server covers many domains superficially rather than providing full lifecycle coverage for any one domain.

Resources