Skip to main content
Glama

Movies

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that the tool does NOT model Kalshi's fee schedule (spread_pp is gross), that compatibility fields can be non-empty even on returned pairs, that 'unknown' legs are never paired, that temporal_alignment null means unknown not aligned, and that pairing is keyword-based, not source-verified. These are exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral traits an agent needs to 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?

The description is long but every sentence earns its place — it is dense with safety-relevant detail and never repeats schema text verbatim. It is front-loaded with the core concept, then modes, response, safety fields, and caveats. It loses a point for being longer than necessary to convey the essentials; a more compact structure with bulleted safety codes would be easier for an agent to parse.

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 (two modes, multiple code lists, nested flags, fee disclosures, skipped-leg counters) and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers mode selection, the meaning of each safety code, the treatment of unknown legs, the temporal_alignment null semantics, the fee caveat, and the rarity of real spreads. An agent can form a strong expectation of the result shape and know what to check before acting on the spread.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes well beyond the schema: it explains the relationship between the three parameters (explicit overrides override the topic-mapped side), enumerates all 10 topic values in prose, and describes how each mode affects the matching logic ('BOTH modes run the identical token-overlap matcher'). This adds meaning beyond the raw parameter definitions.

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+resource: it computes the cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the two venues, the two modes, and the output (top_spreads_pp). Even without comparing to every sibling, it is clear what this tool uniquely does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly explains when to use each of the two modes: use `topic` for 10 pre-mapped macro shortcuts and explicit `kalshi_event_ticker` + `polymarket_event_slug` for custom pairings. It also sets expectations that most pre-mapped topics return compatibility_warning today, pre-mapped ≠ tradeable — this is direct guidance about when NOT to expect a usable spread. It repeatedly warns the user to read safety fields even when matched_pairs>0, which is practical usage guidance.

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

All Movies 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have heavily overlapping purposes—ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical, while entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes all pull overlapping company data. The server is named 'Movies' but only 4 of 35 tools relate to movies, making it impossible to infer what the tool set is actually for.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of verb_noun (search_movies, get_tv_schedule), bare nouns (remember, recall), brand prefixes (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), and ad-hoc verbs (ask_pipeworx vs validate_claim). There is no consistent convention; even the pipeworx family uses ask_ vs grounded vs beta suffixes that don't follow a predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is heavy for a single server, and for a 'Movies' server it is extreme overkill since the vast majority have nothing to do with movies. Even if the intent was a general data/betting server, 35 tools exceed the upper bound of the well-scoped range and would be better split into focused servers.

Completeness2/5

As a movies/TV server it is severely incomplete: there is no get_movie, no reviews, no watchlist, no person/actor search—only search_movies, search_tv_shows, get_tv_show, and get_tv_schedule. If instead the domain is Pipeworx data, coverage is better but still lacks mutation tools (e.g., no create/update for subscriptions beyond subscribe/unsubscribe) and the movie tools become dead weight.

Resources