Skip to main content
Glama

Opencellid

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial non-obvious context beyond that: compatibility warnings can be non-empty even when pairs are returned, pairing_unverified is always set, spreads are gross fees-not-modeled, temporal_alignment null has specific meaning, and unclassified legs are never paired. This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure an agent needs.

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 the length is justified by the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema. It is organized into clear sections: modes, response, safety fields, fees, and skip counters, with the core purpose front-loaded. Some redundancy exists, such as repeating the topic list that the schema already documents, so it is not maximally concise.

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 full responsibility for explaining return semantics, and it does so thoroughly: matched spreads, per-entry flags, skipped_unclassified, low_confidence_pairs, temporal_alignment, fees_note, and skipped_cross_type/subtype counters are all described. It also clarifies ambiguous cases like null temporal alignment and non-empty warnings, so the agent can interpret results correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage: `topic` documents the full enum list, and both explicit parameters document that they override the topic-mapped side. The description reinforces the two-mode semantics and says both modes share the same matcher, but it does not add substantial per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 precise resource and task: 'Cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question.' It clearly distinguishes this from Polymarket-only or Kalshi-only siblings, and it specifies the matching criterion (same outcome on both venues) rather than leaving the scope vague.

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 mode-based guidance: use `topic` for 10 pre-mapped shortcuts, or use explicit `kalshi_event_ticker` + `polymarket_event_slug` for custom pairings, and notes both modes run identically. It also warns that pre-mapped shortcuts are not necessarily tradeable. However, it does not explicitly state the precondition that at least one mode must be selected, nor does it name alternative tools to prefer in other situations.

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

All Opencellid 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 tools are near-indistinguishable by role: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are documented as currently identical, and ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research overlap as lookup/research entry points. The six-tool Polymarket cluster and the suggest_questions/discover_tools pair add further boundary confusion despite very long descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Snake_case is used consistently, and clusters like ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* have internal consistency. However, the global convention is mixed: verb_object names (get_cell, resolve_entity, unsubscribe) sit beside noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes, cells_in_area) and product-prefixed nouns (pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges), so tool names are not predictable from function.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is too many for a server named Opencellid, especially since only get_cell and cells_in_area actually belong to the cell-tower domain. Even as a broader Pipeworx/data bundle, the set is heavy and includes unrelated one-offs like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency.

Completeness2/5

For an OpenCellID server, the surface is just two lookups, missing coverage stats, operator-based search, and other natural cell-tower operations. If judged instead as a Pipeworx data-research suite, coverage is broad, but the lack of a coherent stated domain makes obvious gaps and dead ends harder to identify.

Resources