Skip to main content
Glama

nouel

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes far beyond them: it discloses compatibility_warning and compatibility_codes semantics, unclassified legs are never paired, skipped counters, temporal_alignment, and that both safety fields can be non-empty even when matched_pairs>0. It also explains codes like event_subject_mismatch and non_equivalent_bet_shapes, making behavior predictable.

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 section earns its place: purpose, modes, response shape, safety fields, codes, and operational caveats. It is front-loaded with the core concept and uses explicit labels like TWO MODES, RESPONSE, and SAFETY FIELDS to keep dense information navigable; there is no 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?

Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It documents the returned fields (leg prices, top_spreads_pp, compatibility fields, skipped_unclassified, low_confidence_pairs, temporal_alignment, skipped counters) and explains edge cases such as unknown metric types and unverified premapped pairings.

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% and each parameter already has a description, so baseline is 3. The description adds useful structural meaning beyond the schema: it frames topic as a pre-mapped auto-fetch mechanism, explicit ticker/slug as overriding the mapped side, and explains how the two modes interact with the matching logic.

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 clearly distinguishes its scope from sibling tools by emphasizing cross-venue comparison, two invocation modes, and the 'same outcome on both sides' matching behavior.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: to compare equivalent bets across two venues, with two explicit modes (topic shortcuts vs explicit ticker/slug). It warns that pre-mapped topics often return compatibility_warning and 'pre-mapped ≠ tradeable', though it doesn't name specific sibling alternatives or state outright when not to use it.

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

All nouel 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tool groups have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research all query Pipeworx data; polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker all analyze prediction markets). Descriptions help distinguish them, but the boundaries are not always clear.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are mostly descriptive but mix conventions: some are verb_noun (list_subscriptions, get_prizes_by_year), others are noun_verb (pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges), and a few are single verbs (remember, recall). No strong pattern, but still readable.

Tool Count4/5

With 32 tools, the server covers a wide range of domains (data querying, prediction markets, company analysis, Nobel prizes, memory, subscriptions). The count is high but each tool serves a specific purpose, justifying the breadth.

Completeness4/5

The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for its stated domains: data retrieval, entity resolution, comparison, monitoring, and memory. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct bet placement on Polymarket), but core workflows are well-supported.

Resources