Skip to main content
Glama

Github

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?

This is exceptionally transparent. The description discloses how matching works, what compatibility codes mean, when legs are skipped, that temporal_alignment null means 'could not compute' rather than aligned, and that spreads are gross because Kalshi fees are not modeled. The annotations already signal read-only/idempotent behavior, and the description adds far more context without contradicting them.

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 and dense, and it uses capitalized section labels (TWO MODES, RESPONSE, SAFETY FIELDS, Codes) to organize a large amount of information. It is not as concise as it could be—some points about temporal_mismatch and compatibility codes are repeated—but nearly every sentence adds real operational value. The most important scoping statement is front-loaded.

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 explaining return values, which it does thoroughly: leg-by-leg prices, top_spreads_pp, compatibility fields, flags, skipped-leg counters, temporal alignment, and fee caveats. For a tool with three optional inputs and a complex cross-venue comparison, this description is nearly exhaustive. An agent could invoke and interpret this tool correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining the semantics of the two modes, the override behavior of explicit params over topic mappings, and the fact that both modes run the identical matcher. It also adds practical detail like the pre-mapped topic list and the warning that most topics currently return compatibility warnings. The schema describes the params, but the description enriches them with behavioral nuance.

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 purpose: computing the cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It distinguishes itself from generic polymarket siblings by naming the two venues and the two modes of operation, and it clarifies what the spread actually means. The only slight weakness is that it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 the two usage modes—pre-mapped `topic` shortcuts versus explicit `kalshi_event_ticker` + `polymarket_event_slug`—and states that both run the same matcher. It also gives important context about when results are meaningful vs. when they carry compatibility warnings, and warns that pre-mapped topics are often not tradeable. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, but the usage context is strong enough to guide an agent.

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

All Github 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs. get_repo vs. validate_claim), but there is some overlap between ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, and between bet_research and polymarket_edges. Overall, an agent can generally distinguish them.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names lack a consistent pattern: some are verb_noun (search_repos, get_user), others are noun_verb (entity_profile), and many are compound descriptor phrases (polymarket_arbitrage, scan_dependency). This mixed convention makes the set feel disjointed.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is excessive for a server named 'Github', especially since many tools (e.g., ai_visibility_check, bet_research) are unrelated to GitHub functionality. The count would be appropriate for a broader 'Pipeworx' server but not for a focused GitHub server.

Completeness2/5

The GitHub-relevant tools are limited to read-only operations (get_repo, list_commits, etc.), lacking essential actions like creating/updating repos, issues, or pull requests. The inclusion of numerous non-GitHub tools does not compensate for these gaps.

Resources