Skip to main content
Glama

universities

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?

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds considerable behavioral context beyond that: spreads are gross and do not model Kalshi fees, compatibility warnings must be read even when matched pairs exist, and temporal_alignment null means uncomputed rather than aligned. This caveat-heavy disclosure gives an agent a realistic model of the tool's limits.

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?

Although long, the description is front-loaded with purpose and organized into clearly labeled sections: modes, response, safety fields, fees, and skipped comparisons. Every block earns its place, and the density is justified by the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema.

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?

The description fully compensates for the missing output schema by enumerating the relevant response fields, warning flags, fee caveats, temporal alignment semantics, and skipped-comparison counters. An agent would be able to select and invoke this tool appropriately without additional documentation.

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 description goes beyond the schema by explaining that the three parameters form two mutually reinforcing modes, that explicit ticker and slug override the mapped sides, and that both modes share the same matching behavior. This makes parameter semantics clearer than the raw schema alone, though the schema already carries the same enum-like details.

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 opens with 'Cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question,' which names a specific resource and a precise comparative function. It clearly differentiates itself from single-venue siblings like polymarket_edges by the cross-venue focus and explains scope through the two input modes.

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 clear usage context: use `topic` for pre-mapped shortcuts or explicit ticker/slug for custom pairings, and notes that BOTH modes run the same matcher. It also warns that most pre-mapped topics return compatibility warnings and that pre-mapped does not mean tradeable. It does not explicitly name when to prefer this over sibling tools such as polymarket_arbitrage, so it stops just short of a 5.

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

All universities 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical routers, and the five polymarket_* tools all deal with prediction-market edge detection and filling risk. Memory and subscription tools are clear, but the data-access and research tools require careful reading to avoid selecting the wrong entry point.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case and many follow a verb_noun pattern such as search_universities and resolve_entity, but the set mixes product-prefixed names (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), and noun phrases (entity_profile, deep_research). The ask_pipeworx_beta suffix also introduces a naming convention not used elsewhere.

Tool Count2/5

At 32 tools, the server exceeds the heavy threshold, and almost all tools are unrelated to the apparent 'universities' domain—only search_universities matches the server name. The count might suit a broad data-research platform, but it is poorly scoped for this server's stated identity.

Completeness1/5

For the domain implied by the server name, the surface is severely incomplete: only a name/country university search exists, with no university detail, ranking, program, admissions, or comparison coverage. Agents would dead-end immediately after finding a list of universities.

Resources