Skip to main content
Glama

Quotable

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description discloses significant behavioral caveats: Kalshi fees are not modeled, spreads are gross, compatibility_warning and compatibility_codes can be non-empty even when matches exist, unclassified legs are skipped, null temporal alignment does not mean aligned, and pairing is based on keyword overlap rather than a shared resolver. This far exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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 dense and long, but almost every sentence adds a distinct caveat, mode detail, or safety disclosure that is necessary for correct use. It front-loads purpose and modes, though the flow of safety fields and warnings could be tightened without losing information.

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 explains response fields, matching behavior, compatibility codes, skipped-leg counters, temporal alignment semantics, fee limitations, and the key caveat that pre-mapped topics are not automatically tradeable.

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 documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter semantics: topic auto-fetches the matching event on each venue, explicit event ticker/slug parameters override the topic-mapped sides, and both invocation modes use the same 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-plus-resource purpose: computing the cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It distinguishes itself from sibling arbitrage/edge tools by emphasizing that the spread is gross, not a net tradeable edge, and by naming the two venues explicitly.

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 provides explicit two-mode usage semantics: pre-mapped topic shortcuts versus explicit kalshi_event_ticker + polymarket_event_slug, and states that both modes run the identical token-overlap matcher. It warns that most pre-mapped topics currently return compatibility warnings, but it does not name sibling tools as alternatives or say when to use this instead of a related venue tool.

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

All Quotable 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) is highly overlapping—two of them are explicitly identical right now—and the six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research create unclear boundaries between prediction-market analysis tools. Company-focused tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, resolve_entity) also partially overlap in what they fetch, making tool selection error-prone.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tool names follow a clear snake_case pattern with descriptive verbs (search_quotes, resolve_entity, validate_claim, subscribe, unsubscribe). There is good use of family prefixes like polymarket_* and pipeworx_*, though the Pipeworx family mixes prefix and suffix placement (ask_pipeworx vs. pipeworx_feedback), which is a minor inconsistency.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is far too many for a server named 'Quotable', especially since only 4 tools (get_authors, list_tags, random_quote, search_quotes) relate to quotes. The rest span data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, and dependency scanning—an extremely broad, unfocused scope that overwhelms the apparent purpose.

Completeness3/5

The quote-related surface is minimal but functional (random, search, authors, tags), though missing obvious operations like get_quote_by_id. The data-lookup and prediction-market domains are thoroughly covered with grounding, research, arbitrage, and fill-risk tools, so the broader set is complete—but it does not serve the server's stated identity as a quotes provider.

Resources