Skip to main content
Glama

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 — 11 pre-mapped macro subjects ("fed", "btc", "eth", "cpi", "gdp", "sp500", "recession", "next_pope", "next_uk_pm", "next_israel_pm", "2028_president") auto-fetch the matching event on each venue. You do NOT have to use those exact keys: the topic is resolved through aliases and keywords, so "bitcoin", "fed rate decision", "inflation", "s&p 500" and "next pope" all land on the right subject, and resolution.topic_matched_by tells you whether it was an exact key, a known alias, a phrase found inside a longer question, or a single-keyword guess — treat "phrase" and "token" as a GUESS at what you meant. An unresolvable topic returns error:"mapping_failed" with mapping_stage:"topic_unrecognized" and known_topics[]; it never silently falls back to a default subject. (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. resolution is returned in BOTH modes and says how each side's identifier was picked (which Kalshi series was queried, how many events came back, whether the chosen one had quoted markets; which Polymarket search query ran and why that event won). 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. spread.resolution_source_note is the second standing disclosure: the two venues' RESOLUTION SOURCES are never compared, so a Polymarket market settling on a Binance 1-minute candle and a Kalshi event striking on Kalshi's own index at a different hour will still be shown side by side — part of any spread_pp may be a difference in contract rather than in opinion. 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
topicNoSubject to compare. Canonical keys: fed | btc | eth | cpi | gdp | sp500 | recession | next_pope | next_uk_pm | next_israel_pm | 2028_president — but aliases and keywords resolve too ("bitcoin", "fed rate decision", "ethereum", "inflation", "s&p 500", "us recession", "next pope", "2028 election"). Check resolution.topic_matched_by in the response: "exact"/"alias" is a curated pairing, "phrase"/"token" is a keyword guess.
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.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / examples
      Previous value: -[
      -  {
      -    "topic": "fed"
      -  },
      -  {
      -    "topic": "btc"
      -  }
      -]New value: +[
      +  {
      +    "topic": "fed"
      +  },
      +  {
      +    "topic": "btc"
      +  },
      +  {
      +    "topic": "bitcoin"
      +  },
      +  {
      +    "topic": "fed rate decision"
      +  }
      +]
    • changedInput schema / properties / topic / description
      Previous value: -"Pre-mapped: fed | btc | cpi | gdp | sp500 | recession | next_pope | next_uk_pm | next_israel_pm | 2028_president"New value: +"Subject to compare. Canonical keys: fed | btc | eth | cpi | gdp | sp500 | recession | next_pope | next_uk_pm | next_israel_pm | 2028_president — but aliases and keywords resolve too (\"bitcoin\", \"fed rate decision\", \"ethereum\", \"inflation\", \"s&p 500\", \"us recession\", \"next pope\", \"2028 election\"). Check resolution.topic_matched_by in the response: \"exact\"/\"alias\" is a curated pairing, \"phrase\"/\"token\" is a keyword guess."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover safety/idempotency; the description goes far beyond them by disclosing the two standing caveats (spread_pp is gross of Kalshi fees and never net-edge; resolution sources are never compared), the null-vs-aligned semantics of temporal_alignment, the pairing_unverified flag that is always set when pairs are returned, and the machine-readable compatibility_codes list with meanings. That is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot supply.

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?

It is long, but it is front-loaded with purpose and mode, then organized into labeled blocks (TWO MODES, RESPONSE, SAFETY FIELDS) so an agent can skip sections. Nearly every sentence carries distinct operational information; the tradeoff is raw density, which risks burying the mode routing in the middle of the safety enumeration.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing the return shape, and it does: per-venue legs, matched spread[].top_spreads_pp with per-entry flags[], skipped_unclassified, low_confidence_pairs, counters, notes, and error payload shapes. An agent has enough to call the tool and interpret the response without further 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?

Schema description coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value on top by explaining mode precedence (explicit tickers override the topic-mapped side), how topics resolve through aliases/keywords, and how to interpret resolution.topic_matched_by values as curated vs guessed. It stops short of showing the exact override interaction with error cases, so it is not a 5.

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 opening sentence names a specific resource (cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket) and a specific constraint (same resolving question), which cleanly separates it from the single-venue polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges and polymarket_fill_risk siblings without the agent needing to open a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Both operating modes are enumerated with their trigger conditions, the topic mode's alias behavior is spelled out, and the tool explicitly warns when results should not be trusted ('most pre-mapped topics return compatibility_warning today; pre-mapped != tradeable'). It also states what happens on failure (mapping_failed, never a silent default fallback) rather than leaving the agent to infer it.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.