Skip to main content
Glama

Opendatasoft

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?

Despite annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, the description adds substantial behavioral context: fee disclosure, compatibility codes, null-meaning of temporal_alignment, never-pairing behavior for unknown legs, and skipped counters. This goes well beyond what annotations provide and is especially valuable given there is no output schema.

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 uses clear visual structure (TWO MODES, RESPONSE, SAFETY FIELDS, Codes) that helps an agent parse it. Almost every sentence carries substantive information needed for correct usage. There is minor redundancy, such as repeating temporal_alignment_unknown semantics and 'pre-mapped ≠ tradeable', but not enough to undermine usability.

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?

This tool has no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return values. It covers leg-by-leg prices, top_spreads_pp, compatibility_warning/codes, per-entry flags, skipped_unclassified, low_confidence_pairs, temporal_alignment semantics, fees_note, and skipped counters. For such a complex comparison tool, the coverage is thorough and actionable.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described including the topic value list, ticker example, slug example, and override semantics. The description reinforces these by explaining the two modes but does not materially extend the schema's parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question.' It further differentiates the tool through two explicit modes (topic shortcuts vs explicit ticker/slug pairing), making it distinguishable from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges.

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 concrete when-to-use guidance: topic mode for 10 pre-mapped shortcuts, explicit mode for custom pairings, and both modes running the same matcher. It also warns that pre-mapped topics often return compatibility warnings and are not necessarily tradeable. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state 'use X instead', so it misses the highest bar.

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

All Opendatasoft 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

The tool set is a kitchen sink of unrelated utilities (Opendatasoft catalog, Pipeworx data search, prediction markets, npm scanning, memory, etc.). The 'ask_pipeworx' family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) are very similar and could easily be confused. The wide variety of purposes with overlapping names makes it hard for an agent to disambiguate.

Naming Consistency1/5

Naming is wildly inconsistent: snake_case (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx), concatenated (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_arbitrage), verb phrases (compare_entities, suggest_questions), and simple nouns (dataset, records). No consistent pattern exists, making it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools, the server is overloaded with a scattershot collection of capabilities unrelated to its name (Opendatasoft). Only 5 tools directly relate to Opendatasoft, while the rest cover diverse third-party services. This indicates poor scope focus.

Completeness2/5

The server lacks completeness for any single purpose. For Opendatasoft, it has only read-oriented tools with no create/update/delete. For Pipeworx, many query tools exist but no data ingestion. Prediction market tools are extensive but not part of the core mission. Overall, the surface has significant gaps.

Resources