Skip to main content
Glama

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 — 11 pre-mapped macro subjects ("fed", "btc", "eth", "cpi", "gdp", "sp500", "recession", "next_pope", "next_uk_pm", "next_israel_pm", "2028_president") auto-fetch the matching event on each venue. You do NOT have to use those exact keys: the topic is resolved through aliases and keywords, so "bitcoin", "fed rate decision", "inflation", "s&p 500" and "next pope" all land on the right subject, and resolution.topic_matched_by tells you whether it was an exact key, a known alias, a phrase found inside a longer question, or a single-keyword guess — treat "phrase" and "token" as a GUESS at what you meant. An unresolvable topic returns error:"mapping_failed" with mapping_stage:"topic_unrecognized" and known_topics[]; it never silently falls back to a default subject. (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. resolution is returned in BOTH modes and says how each side's identifier was picked (which Kalshi series was queried, how many events came back, whether the chosen one had quoted markets; which Polymarket search query ran and why that event won). Fleet #2064: when two Polymarket candidates tie on resolution time polymarket_selected_by now SAYS so, names every tied slug, names the tie-break that actually decided it (the candidate whose metric_type matches the Kalshi series, else lexicographic slug order), and states whether the winner's metric matches the Kalshi series — it used to assert "picked the soonest-resolving" byte-identically on calls that returned DIFFERENT events, because the tie was settled by upstream fetch arrival order. 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 (the two events are about different SUBJECT months — e.g. Kalshi "CPI in October" vs Polymarket "September Inflation"), temporal_alignment_unknown (the subject month could not be parsed on one or both sides — NOT the same as confirmed-aligned; check each event 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 are about the same SUBJECT calendar period, in EITHER mode — this is the period the question is ABOUT (e.g. "September" for a CPI release that settles in October), not necessarily when either side settles; null means it could not be computed (see temporal_alignment_unknown), not that the two sides align. Fleet #2062: this used to compare Polymarket's settlement date against Kalshi's subject month and call a match — fixed to compare subject month to subject month on both sides. FEES: every top_spreads_pp and low_confidence_pairs[] row carries edge_pp_gross (== |spread_pp|), fees_pp, edge_pp_net, net_positive, and BOTH venues' taker fees itemised as kalshi_fee_pp and polymarket_fee_pp (plus polymarket_fee_rate, polymarket_fee_category, polymarket_fee_basis). Kalshi leg: fee = ceil(0.07 * contracts * P * (1-P) * 100) / 100 dollars per order, verified against kalshi.com/docs and corroborating explainers as of 2026-09-12. Polymarket leg: fee = shares × rate × p × (1-p) with rate by category (crypto 0.07, sports/economics/culture/weather/other 0.05, finance/politics/mentions/tech 0.04, geopolitics and world events fee-free), verified against Polymarket's own docs as of 2026-09-13 and read off each market's published fee parameters rather than inferred. Both amortized at a 100-contract reference size. Before fleet #1927 the Polymarket leg carried modeled gas only, which made every edge_pp_net here optimistic by up to ~1.75pp; spreads that no longer clear are the correction. Spread-crossing cost is still NOT modeled on the Polymarket leg (no live order book is fetched by this tool). spread.fees_note carries the same disclosure. RESOLUTION EQUIVALENCE (fleet #1909): every top_spreads_pp and low_confidence_pairs[] row now also carries resolution_equivalent ("true"|"false"|"unclear") and, when not "true", resolution_warning naming what differs — computed ONCE per event pair (not per leg) via resolution_audit/resolution_diff off one representative leg from each side, since the settlement mechanism is normally shared across every leg in one event. A non-equivalent or unclear pair is NEVER suppressed, only labelled — read resolution_warning before treating spread_pp as a real cross-venue disagreement rather than a difference in contract. spread.resolution_audit carries the full underlying audit (source/timestamp/timezone/precision/evidence_standard/void_handling for both sides) and spread.resolution_source_note is the standing disclosure explaining the methodology and its "unclear" caveat. Call resolution_audit/resolution_diff directly for a specific pair of legs if you need a non-representative-sample breakdown. 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
topicNoSubject to compare. Canonical keys: fed | btc | eth | cpi | gdp | sp500 | recession | next_pope | next_uk_pm | next_israel_pm | 2028_president — but aliases and keywords resolve too ("bitcoin", "fed rate decision", "ethereum", "inflation", "s&p 500", "us recession", "next pope", "2028 election"). Check resolution.topic_matched_by in the response: "exact"/"alias" is a curated pairing, "phrase"/"token" is a keyword guess.
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.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description is exceptionally transparent about behavioral nuances: it discloses the two modes, the matching logic, the safety fields and their meanings, fee calculation details with verification dates, resolution equivalence methodology, and historical changes that affect interpretation (e.g., fleet #1927 correcting gas modeling). It also explicitly states limitations (spread-crossing cost not modeled, no live order book). Annotations already indicate read-only/idempotent, and the description adds extensive context without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely verbose—it reads as a full technical spec with historical fleet notes and extensive caveats. While it is front-loaded with the core purpose and organized with section headers, its length (several hundred words) is far from concise. Every sentence adds information, but the sheer volume makes it heavy for an agent to parse. A more distilled version would be more efficient.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains all response fields (spread, compatibility_warning, fees, resolution_audit, etc.), defines every safety code, describes fee formulas with verification dates, and covers both modes and edge cases. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results, even without an output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the schema already provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, the tool description adds substantial semantic value: it explains the topic aliases and keywords, how resolution.topic_matched_by distinguishes exact/alias from phrase/token guesses, and the behavior of explicit overrides. It also clarifies that unresolvable topics return a specific error rather than falling back. This goes well beyond the schema's baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question.' It clearly defines the tool's function and distinguishes it from single-venue tools by its focus on cross-venue comparison. The two operational modes are explicitly described, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explains when to use the tool (for cross-venue spread analysis) and details both usage modes with examples. It provides clear guidance on how to interpret results and warns that 'pre-mapped ≠ tradeable'. It also points to alternative tools like resolution_audit/resolution_diff for specific needs. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool in favor of siblings, so it stops short of a full when-not/alternatives matrix.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.