Skip to main content
Glama

Google_docs

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?

Even though annotations already declare the tool read-only and idempotent, the description adds substantial behavioral context: matching is keyword/overlap-based and unverified, Kalshi fees are not modeled so spreads are gross, temporal_alignment null has specific meaning, unknown legs are never paired, and warnings can be non-empty even when matched_pairs is greater than zero. Nothing contradicts the annotations.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose and organized into labeled sections that make the dense caveats navigable. Some redundancy exists — temporal_alignment_unknown is explained both in the code list and in the temporal_alignment paragraph — but the length is largely 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?

With no output schema to lean on, the description compensates thoroughly: it documents leg prices, top_spreads_pp, compatibility flags, skipped counters, fee disclosure, null semantics, and failure modes. An agent has enough information to call either mode and correctly interpret ambiguous or warning-laden responses.

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 schema already covers all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by spelling out the topic enum, explaining that kalshi_event_ticker and polymarket_event_slug override the topic-mapped side, and stating that both modes run the same matcher, though some of this repeats schema text.

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 states a specific operation and resource: computing the cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It also clearly differentiates the tool from single-venue or arbitrage-focused siblings by describing its unique two-mode design and cross-venue matching goal.

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 distinguishes the two modes — pre-mapped topic shortcuts versus explicit custom pairings — and warns that most pre-mapped topics currently return compatibility_warning and are not necessarily tradeable. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when to prefer another tool, so it falls just short of full usage-direction completeness.

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

All Google_docs 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

Several tools are nearly indistinguishable: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical in behavior, while ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research heavily overlap with the same router. The dense Polymarket tool cluster and discovery tools (discover_tools vs suggest_questions) further blur boundaries, though many individual tools do have distinct niches.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently lowercase snake_case, which helps, but the convention is mixed: some are verb_noun (docs_create, list_subscriptions), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, deep_research, bet_research), and one uses a suffix (ask_pipeworx_beta). It is readable but not a predictable pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is already above the 25+ threshold, but the bigger problem is that the server is named Google_docs and only 6 of the 37 tools relate to Google Docs. The remaining 31 tools form a broad data-research and prediction-market platform, making the set feel bloated and mislabeled for its apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

For a Google Docs server, the surface is incomplete: you can create, read, insert, replace, and append text, but there is no delete, no list/search, no formatting control, and no permission handling. The extensive Pipeworx and Polymarket tools cover a different domain entirely, so they do not fill the gaps in the docs workflow.

Resources