Skip to main content
Glama

Outlook Contacts

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses that matching is by keyword overlap with 'pairing_unverified' set in EITHER mode, that the tool does not model Kalshi's fee schedule so every spread_pp is gross, and that legs with unknown metric_type/match_subtype are never paired. It pins down null semantics for temporal_alignment ('null means it could not be computed, not that the two sides align') and warns that compatibility warnings can be non-empty even when matched_pairs>0. This is precisely the behavioral context an agent needs to avoid over-trusting the spread numbers.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense wall of text; every sentence carries real content, but scannability suffers and there is redundancy — 'EITHER mode' is said twice and temporal_mismatch/temporal_alignment_unknown appear in both the compatibility_codes list and the per-entry flags list. The most operationally critical caveats (fees are gross; pre-mapped ≠ tradeable) arrive last rather than being front-loaded. Dense and non-tautological, but structurally it should be bulleted or reordered.

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 the full burden of explaining the return shape and does so thoroughly: leg-by-leg prices, top_spreads_pp with per-entry flags, compatibility_warning/compatibility_codes dual form, temporal_alignment, fees_note, and the skipped_cross_type/subtype counters. Given the tool's complexity — three optional params, two modes, and a rich caveat surface — nothing an agent needs to invoke it and interpret results is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already describes each parameter and the override behavior ('Overrides the topic-mapped... side'). The description adds the two-mode framework that binds the parameters together — topic mode vs explicit mode — and states that both modes run the identical matcher, which is meaning beyond the individual field descriptions. It stops short of giving fuller syntax details (e.g., ticker formats beyond one example), so a modest 4.

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?

Opens with a precise statement of function — 'Cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question' — naming a specific verb, the two resources, and the scope ('same resolving question'). The cross-venue framing distinguishes it from Polymarket-only siblings like polymarket_edges and polymarket_arbitrage without needing to name them.

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 TWO MODES breakdown tells an agent exactly when to pass `topic` ('10 pre-mapped macro shortcuts') versus explicit `kalshi_event_ticker` + `polymarket_event_slug` for custom pairings, and clarifies that both run the identical token-overlap matcher. The closing warning — 'most pre-mapped topics return compatibility_warning today; pre-mapped ≠ tradeable' — sets accurate expectations for shortcut use. It never names sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, which keeps it a 4 rather than a 5.

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

All Outlook Contacts 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-duplicates by name and function, notably ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta, and the dense Polymarket family (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread). Long descriptions help, but an agent cannot reliably pick between these without reading closely.

Naming Consistency4/5

Almost all names are lowercase_snake_case and mostly verb-leading (discover_tools, resolve_entity, unsubscribe), but there are noun-first exceptions (entity_profile, recent_changes, pipework_trending) and several phrasal or compound forms. This is a minor deviation from a clean verb_noun pattern rather than a chaotic mix.

Tool Count2/5

31 tools is over the heavy threshold, and the set feels bloated: multiple query routers, a half-dozen overlapping Polymarket tools, and two AI-visibility probes that could be merged. The count is especially hard to justify for a server named Tools 'OutLook Contacts', since none are contact management.

Completeness1/5

For the server's stated domain, Outlook Contacts, there are zero tools in that domain — no create contact, no list contacts, no update, no delete, no folders or mailboxes. Even though the actual Pipework toolkit is broad for its own domain, this set fails its declared intend domain entirely.

Resources