Skip to main content
Glama

Nasa Cmr

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.

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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description's extra behavioral detail is high-value context rather than repetition. It discloses that pairs are matched by keyword/word overlap rather than a shared resolution source, that Kalshi fees are not modeled so spreads are gross, that compatibility codes can be non-empty even when matched_pairs>0, and the exact semantics of null temporal_alignment. This goes well beyond the structured 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 this is a genuinely complex tool with no output schema, so the length is mostly justified. It is well-organized into labeled sections (modes, response, safety fields, fees, skipped counts) and front-loads the core purpose. A few clauses are slightly redundant, but every section earns its place given the subtle matching and safety semantics an agent must understand.

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 must carry the full burden of explaining return values and edge cases, and it does: top_spreads_pp, compatibility_warning/codes, temporal_alignment, fees_note, skipped_cross_type/subtype, and unclassified-leg handling are all covered. An agent can form an accurate mental model of the tool's behavior and limitations without needing additional documentation.

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 meaningful semantic context beyond the schema: it explains that topic is a shortcut which auto-fetches matching events on both venues, that the explicit ticker/slug override the topic-mapped side, and that both modes run the same matcher and therefore the same disclosures apply. This is more than the schema alone provides.

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 opens with a specific verb-plus-resource statement: it computes the cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It further distinguishes itself by naming two modes (topic vs explicit pairings), which makes the tool's scope unmistakable among sibling market-analysis tools.

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?

Usage context is explicit: it describes when to use the pre-mapped topic shortcuts versus custom kalshi_event_ticker/polymarket_event_slug pairings, and warns that most pre-mapped topics currently return compatibility warnings. It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage) or state when not to use the tool, so it stops just short of full alternative-routing guidance.

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

All Nasa Cmr 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

The tool set mixes NASA-specific tools with a large number of financial and prediction market tools, causing confusion. Within the non-NASA tools, there is significant overlap (e.g., multiple Polymarket analysis tools, several research tools with vague boundaries).

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case, but naming patterns are inconsistent: some start with verbs (search_collections, get_collection), others are noun phrases (entity_profile, deep_research). There is no uniform verb_noun convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 33 tools, the count is high. Although it may be appropriate for the underlying domain (data/prediction markets), it is excessive for the server's stated NASA focus, where only 3 tools are relevant.

Completeness1/5

For a server named 'Nasa Cmr', the tool set is severely incomplete: only three tools cover NASA Earth science (search/granules/collections), lacking any support for missions, datasets, or advanced queries. The non-NASA tools are comprehensive but disconnected from the server name.

Resources