Skip to main content
Glama

Aviationstack

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?

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial behavioral caveats: matching is 'by keyword and word overlap, not a shared resolution source,' spreads are gross (not modeled for Kalshi fees), null temporal_alignment means 'could not be computed' rather than aligned, and legs with unknown metric_type/match_subtype are never paired. This is far beyond what annotations supply and contains no contradiction.

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 long, but organized with uppercase section markers (TWO MODES, RESPONSE, SAFETY FIELDS) and packs dense, non-obvious safety information. There is some redundancy (e.g., temporal-mismatch explanations appear in both the codes list and the temporal_alignment sentence), so it is not maximally tight, 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by specifying response shape (raw probabilities 0-1, top_spreads_pp as Kalshi − Polymarket), safety fields, skipped-leg counters, and per-pair flags. It also clarifies ambiguous cases (null alignment, non-empty compatibility on returned pairs), making it complete enough for an agent to call and interpret the result 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description lifts it by explaining the two modes and that explicit kalshi_event_ticker and polymarket_event_slug override the topic-mapped sides while running the identical matcher. It doesn't add stricter constraints or formats beyond the schema, but the mode/override semantics are useful.

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 with a concrete definition: 'Cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question.' It goes beyond the title by explaining the signal (participant pools differ, delta of 2-25pp) and naming the two invocation modes, so an agent knows exactly what resource/operation this tool exposes and how it differs from a generic market query.

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 explains the two usage modes (pre-mapped topic shortcuts vs explicit ticker/slug pairings) and warns that 'pre-mapped ≠ tradeable' and most topics currently return compatibility warnings. It does not explicitly point to any sibling (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage) or state when not to use this tool vs those alternatives, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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

All Aviationstack 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and deep_research all routing queries, and the polymarket family (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk) covering similar ground. While descriptions are detailed, an agent could easily select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix bare nouns (airlines, airports, flights) with verb phrases (compare_entities, resolve_entity) and standalone verbs (remember, forget), with no consistent verb_noun pattern. Names like ask_pipeworx_beta and scan_competitor_ai_presence are internally inconsistent with the rest.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is far beyond the typical scope for a single server, and many are unrelated to the aviation theme, suggesting a lack of focus. The core aviation functionality only accounts for 6 of the tools.

Completeness3/5

The aviation tools (airlines, airports, flights, routes, cities, countries) cover basic lookups, but advanced operations like delay statistics or aircraft data are absent. The unrelated tools do not fill these gaps, and the overall surface feels shallow for a server claiming to be an Aviationstack.

Resources