Skip to main content
Glama

Nasa

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. 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), non_equivalent_bet_shapes, no_candidate_pairs, unclassified_legs_excluded, premapped_pairing_unverified (always set in topic mode when 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[]. 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. 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?

Even though annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it explains compatibility codes, never pairs unknown legs, skips cross-type and cross-subtype comparisons, reports temporal alignment, and returns low-confidence pairs only for inspection. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 information-dense, and each section explains a necessary behavior or output field. The front-loaded purpose statement is clear, though the volume of flags, codes, and counters pushes the description toward the edge of readability.

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 there is no output schema and the tool has a complex response with warnings, spread fields, skipped counters, and temporal alignment, the description provides enough detail for an agent to call it correctly and interpret the results. Nothing essential seems missing.

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 schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions and examples. The description adds value by enumerating the ten topic shortcuts, explaining that explicit ticker/slug override the topic-mapped side, and clarifying how the two modes relate. This goes beyond the schema's baseline documentation.

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, meaningful purpose: it computes the cross-venue probability spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It clearly identifies the resource, the two input modes, and the core output concept, which on its own separates it from generic price-comparison 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?

The description gives strong contextual guidance: the spread is a real signal only when bet shapes are equivalent, and it explicitly warns that most pre-mapped topics are not actually tradeable. It stops short of naming alternatives like polymarket_arbitrage or explicitly saying 'use this when X, not when Y', so it is not a perfect 5.

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

All Nasa 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 tool clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical), and ask_pipeworx_grounded are three variants of the same router, while bet_research, polymarket_edges, and polymarket_arbitrage all target prediction-market opportunities. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent must read extensively to avoid selecting the wrong tool within each cluster.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of conventions: get_*/search_* for NASA tools, ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* family prefixes, plus one-off names like entity_profile, bet_research, deep_research, recent_changes, and scan_dependency. There is no consistent verb_noun or family-wide pattern, making tool selection unpredictable despite each individual name being readable.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is heavy for a server named Nasa, and only 5 of them are actually NASA-related; the rest form a sprawling general data-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription toolkit. The count is borderline defensible for a broad data assistant, but it is clearly unjustified under the server's stated NASA identity.

Completeness3/5

As a general data-research assistant the surface is quite complete: discovery, routing, grounded verification, entity profiles, comparisons, memory, subscriptions, and feedback are all covered. As a NASA server, however, there are notable gaps—no EONET events, Earth observation, exoplanet archive, or TLE/mission-specific data—and the large non-NASA tool surface does not fill those gaps.

Resources