Skip to main content
Glama

ipinfo

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?

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: spreads are gross, Kalshi fees are not modeled, compatibility_codes can be non-empty on returned pairs, legs with unknown metric_type/match_subtype are never paired, and null temporal_alignment means uncomputed rather than aligned. This goes far beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 the complexity of the tool justifies it. It is organized into labeled sections such as TWO MODES, RESPONSE, SAFETY FIELDS, and codes, which makes it scannable, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Some sentences are run-on and slightly redundant, but the structure and density of useful information make it effective.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description comprehensively explains response contents, safety fields, compatibility codes, null semantics, skipped-leg counters, fee limitations, and the reliability caveat that most pre-mapped topics return warnings. An agent has enough context to invoke either mode correctly and interpret returned data appropriately.

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 at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that topic auto-fetches the matching event on each venue, that explicit ticker/slug override the topic-mapped side, and that both modes run the same token-overlap matcher with the same disclosures.

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 first sentence states the exact function: computing the cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. The description further clarifies two modes and the matching logic, making it easy to distinguish from single-venue sibling tools like polymarket_edges or 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?

The description gives clear mode-selection guidance: use the topic shortcuts for pre-mapped macro events, and use explicit kalshi_event_ticker and polymarket_event_slug for custom pairings. It also warns that pre-mapped topics are often non-tradeable and that warnings must be read even when matched_pairs > 0. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when to prefer polymarket_arbitrage, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All ipinfo 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

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer data questions; polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, and polymarket_edge_tracker all scan prediction markets. Despite long descriptions, an agent could easily select the wrong one, especially the currently identical ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta.

Naming Consistency3/5

Mostly snake_case, but with inconsistent patterns: get_my_ip/lookup_ip use verb_noun, entity_profile/recent_changes are noun phrases, remember/recall/forget are bare verbs, and the polymarket_* tools share a brand-prefixed noun style. Readable but not a predictable, uniform convention.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools, the server is overloaded, far exceeding the 25-tool threshold for 'too many.' It combines two unrelated identities—the original ipinfo IP lookup and the massive Pipeworx data/research platform—making the toolset heavy and harder for an agent to navigate efficiently.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface provides strong coverage of the data query and research lifecycle: discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions), entity resolution (resolve_entity), lookup (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile), verification (validate_claim, ask_pipeworx_grounded), and post-processing (search_within, recent_changes). Minor gaps exist—for example, no dedicated 'get SEC filing by accession' tool or single-purpose financials endpoint—but these are workaroundable via the routing tools.

Resources