Skip to main content
Glama

Scb Se

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the safe read-only annotations, the description discloses the nontrivial behavior: compatibility codes may be non-empty alongside pairs, temporal_alignment null means unknown not aligned, spreads are gross of Kalshi fees, and unknown metric legs are never paired. It also explains fallback lists and skipped counters, so the agent knows what to expect. No contradiction with annotations.

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 segment earns its place: purpose, modes, response shape, code dictionary, fee caveat, and final calibration warning. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses explicit labels (TWO MODES, RESPONSE, SAFETY FIELDS) to keep dense content navigable.

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 covers return structure, per-leg prices, top_spreads_pp, compatibility_codes, temporal alignment semantics, fees, skipped counters, and unclassified legs. For a complex cross-venue comparison tool, this is effectively a full usage contract.

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 already covers all three parameters at 100%, and the description adds meaning by defining the two modes, explaining that topic auto-fetches the matching event, and that explicit parameters create custom pairings with identical matcher behavior. It also gives concrete examples of tickers/slugs and explains the interaction/override semantics. This goes beyond a baseline 3 but doesn't add detail on value formatting or edge cases beyond what's in the schema.

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 by defining the tool as the cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question, then immediately narrows the product to two concrete modes. This is specific enough to separate it from the polymarket-only siblings and from arbitrage tools, even without an imperative verb.

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?

Clearly establishes the two invocation modes (topic shortcuts vs explicit ticker/slug) and notes both run the same matcher, so the agent knows custom pairings behave identically. It also warns that pre-mapped topics are often not tradeable and that compatibility warnings must be read even when pairs are returned. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative sibling, but the tool's own usage context is well specified.

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

All Scb Se 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but several overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical (only differing in verification/depth), and polymarket_edges / polymarket_arbitrage / polymarket_edge_tracker / polymarket_fill_risk / polymarket_kalshi_spread all target similar prediction-market signals, which could cause mis-selection without careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most names follow a clear verb_noun pattern (resolve_entity, query_table, remember, recall, forget, subscribe, unsubscribe, validate_claim, compare_entities, search_within), but there are exceptions like ai_visibility_check (adjective_noun), generate_llms_txt (verb_noun with dot), and several polymarket_* names that are fine but inconsistent with the snake_case verb-first convention.

Tool Count5/5

35 tools is a large but reasonable surface for a broad data/serach platform covering company financials, economics, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and discovery. The count is justified by the wide domain, and the set is not bloated with trivial duplicates.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers core CRUD for entities (resolve, profile, compare, search, query) and memory (remember/recall/forget), plus subscriptions and meta-tools. Minor gaps: no explicit tool for updating/creating entities (understandable for a read-only data service), and no tool for listing all available table schemas beyond discovery (subjects covers this). Overall strong coverage.

Resources