Skip to main content
Glama

Monday

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral depth on top: the fees_note discloses that spreads are gross and Kalshi's fee schedule is not modeled, the 'null means it could not be computed, not aligned' semantics for temporal_alignment, the rule that unknown-metric legs are never paired, and per-entry flags[]. It even explains when both safety fields can be non-empty despite matched pairs existing — genuinely valuable beyond the annotations.

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 densely packed and uses labeled sections (TWO MODES, RESPONSE, SAFETY FIELDS, Codes, fees_note) that aid navigation, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is a wall of text — roughly 300 words covering ten compatibility codes, per-entry flags, and skipped counters — much of which could have been deferred to an output schema or parameter docs. It earns its place for a complex tool, but it is at the edge of bloated.

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 return values — and it does so thoroughly: leg-by-leg prices, top_spreads_pp ordering, compatibility_warning/codes[], per-entry flags[], temporal_alignment fields, fees_note, and skipped_cross_type/subtype counters. For a tool of this complexity with zero structured output documentation, nothing an agent needs to interpret the response is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% — all three parameters are already documented, including the override relationship ('Overrides the topic-mapped Kalshi side'). The description adds the insight that BOTH modes run the identical token-overlap matcher and enumerates the topic values, but it largely restates schema content rather than adding new parameter-level meaning.

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 opening line states a specific verb and resource: 'Cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question.' It goes further to define the two operating modes (topic shortcuts vs explicit ticker/slug pairings), which makes the tool's function concrete and distinguishes it from sibling Polymarket tools like polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_edges.

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 each mode: topic mode for 10 pre-mapped macros, explicit mode for 'custom pairings,' and warns that 'most pre-mapped topics return compatibility_warning today; pre-mapped ≠ tradeable.' It lacks an explicit exclusion naming sibling alternatives (e.g., when to use polymarket_arbitrage instead), but the mode-selection guidance and the 'when they aren't [equivalent] the tool says so' statement provide strong usage context.

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

All Monday 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set has several overlapping tool clusters. ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical in behavior, ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap heavily, and polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, and polymarket_fill_risk all target opportunity-finding/fill-checking on prediction markets. While individual descriptions are detailed, an agent could easily pick the wrong tool among these near-duplicates.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent across the surface. The monday_* and polymarket_* prefixes are consistent within their subgroups, and ask_pipeworx_* forms a family, but the rest mix verb_phrase (validate_claim, compare_entities, discover_tools), noun_phrase (entity_profile, recent_changes, suggest_questions), and bare verbs (remember, forget, recall) with no unifying pattern. This makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools, the surface is overloaded. The Monday.com integration alone only needs 5 tools, and the remaining 31 are a sprawling research/meta-toolkit. Many of these could be consolidated (e.g., ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta, or the several polymarket scanners), so the count feels inflated beyond what the server's core purpose requires.

Completeness3/5

The data-research and monitoring side is thorough, covering querying, grounding, comparison, profiling, entity resolution, subscriptions, memory, and feedback. However, the Monday.com integration is incomplete: it offers create/list/get/search for items but no update or delete operations, and no board creation or modification. This leaves the Monday workflow with dead ends.

Resources