Skip to main content
Glama

Sec Events

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. 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), non_equivalent_bet_shapes, no_candidate_pairs, unclassified_legs_excluded, premapped_pairing_unverified (always set in topic mode when 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[]. 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. 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.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing safety fields, compatibility codes, skipped/unclassified leg behavior, temporal alignment, and the caveat that warnings can be non-empty even when matched_pairs > 0. It also explains why venue prices differ and explicitly says unclassified legs are never paired. This is rich, honest behavioral context.

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 it earns its length by defining modes, response fields, safety semantics, and failure modes. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured with clear labels like TWO MODES, RESPONSE, SAFETY FIELDS. Some repetition exists around warnings, but no sentence is filler.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values and behavior. It covers leg-by-leg prices, raw probability, top_spreads_pp, compatibility_warning, compatibility_codes, skipped_unclassified, low_confidence_pairs, temporal_alignment, and skipped counters. This is comprehensive enough for an agent to call the tool and interpret results correctly.

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 description adds meaning by explaining the relationship between the three params: `topic` maps both sides, while `kalshi_event_ticker` and `polymarket_event_slug` override the mapped side individually. This clarifies the mode logic beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 resource and operation: the cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It distinguishes itself from sibling Polymarket tools by emphasizing cross-venue comparison, two explicit modes, and the 'same outcome shows up on both sides' matching logic.

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 clearly explains when to use each mode (`topic` shortcuts vs explicit ticker/slug overrides) and warns that pre-mapped topics are not necessarily tradeable and often return compatibility_warning. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool to use instead, but the mode selection and limitation guidance are strong enough to route an agent correctly.

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

All Sec Events 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among similarly named tools like ask_pipeworx, deep_research, and bet_research, which could cause misselection. However, detailed descriptions help differentiate them.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names follow a mix of patterns (verb_noun, noun_noun, etc.) and use different prefixes (polymarket_, sec_8k_, pipeworx_), which is somewhat inconsistent but still readable and descriptive overall.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is on the higher side, with several tools dedicated to specific subdomains (e.g., 6 Polymarket-related, 4 SEC 8-K tools). While each has a distinct role, the number feels slightly bloated for a single server.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a broad range of data research and monitoring tasks, including filings, entity profiles, claims, and prediction markets. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no data writing tools), but core workflows are well-supported.

Resources