Skip to main content
Glama

jikan

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context on top: compatibility codes, gross versus net fees, the non-equivalence disclosures, temporal alignment semantics with a clear note that null means 'could not be computed,' and the rule that unknown legs are never paired. There is 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is long, but every block earns its place: purpose, modes, response shape, safety fields, matching limitations, fees, and counters are clearly separated and front-loaded. The structure uses caps, lists, and explicit field references to make dense information scannable. This is appropriately sized for a complex tool and avoids filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining return behavior. It covers the main response fields, the important per-entry flags, the never-paired unknown leg rule, the fees disclosure, the skipped comparison counters, and the meaning of null temporal alignment. For a tool of this complexity, an agent has what it needs to invoke and interpret it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between the modes: the topic shortcuts auto-fetch events, while the two explicit parameters override the mapped sides, and both modes run the identical matcher. It also provides concrete examples and clarifies that no parameters are required. This extra semantic context justifies a score above 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 precise resource — the cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question — and clearly distinguishes it from single-venue or other measurement tools. The two-mode explanation further sharpens what the tool does and how scope is controlled. This is far more specific than a mere restatement of the tool name.

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 context for when to use the tool: it explains the two modes, when the spread is a 'real signal' versus when it is not, and warns that pre-mapped topics often return compatibility warnings and are not automatically tradeable. It does not explicitly name alternatives among sibling tools or state 'do not use when X', but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide when invocation is appropriate.

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

All jikan 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 serve overlapping purposes (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research, compare_entities, entity_profile, recent_changes, validate_claim) all querying Pipeworx data with similar outcomes. An agent would struggle to choose correctly without deep understanding of nuanced differences.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: snake_case (ask_pipeworx, get_anime), camelCase (generate_llms_txt, pipeworx_feedback), and compound names (polymarket_arbitrage, ai_visibility_check). No consistent pattern across the tool set.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a single server. Many are meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions) or narrowly focused (pipeworx_trending, scan_dependency). The server tries to cover too many domains (anime, financial data, predictions, memory) in one surface.

Completeness3/5

The anime tools (search, get, top) form a reasonable read-only surface. The Pipeworx query tools are comprehensive but lack obvious data management tools (e.g., listing sources, managing credentials). Memory tools (remember/recall/forget) are isolated. Overall, gaps exist but core workflows are covered.

Resources