Skip to main content
Glama

Ipify

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 (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already establish safety, and the description layers substantial behavioral context on top: the compatibility_codes[] enum with itemized meanings, the critical note that temporal_alignment null means 'could not be computed — NOT aligned,' the fees_note disclosure that spreads are gross and fees are unmodeled, and the skipped_conservation counters. No contradiction with 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 — the core purpose, the two modes, and the safety fields all appear early. It is long and reads as one dense wall of text despite nominal 'TWO MODES' and 'SAFETY FIELDS' markers; the material is complex enough to justify the length, but additional line breaks and bullet structure would improve scanability. Every sentence earns its place.

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 carries the full burden of explaining the response, and it does so thoroughly: spread[].top_spreads_pp with per-entry flags[], compatibility_warning, spread.skipped_unclassified, low_confidence_pairs[], temporal_alignment, and fees_note are all defined. An agent can correctly interpret results without seeing example output. Approximately complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 three parameters (topic, kalshi_event_ticker, polymarket_event_slug) are already documented with descriptions and examples. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by enumerating all ten topic shortcuts inline, explainging that explicit tickers/slugs override the topic-mapped side, and clarifying that both modes run the identical matcher. This exceeds the baseline without being redundant.

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 precise statement of purpose — 'Cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question' — naming a specific computation (pp spread), the two resources, and the object of comparison. It then distinguishes itself from likely siblings by declaring the two operational modes and the token-overlap matcher that runs in both, so an agent can tell it apart from polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_edges.

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?

Gives strong when-to-use guidance: explains that the delta is real only 'when the bet shapes are equivalent,' spells out both invocation modes (topic shortcuts vs explicit ticker+slug), and closes with an honest warning that most pre-mapped topics currently return compatibility_warning — 'pre-mapped ≠ tradeable.' It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for exclusion, which is the only gap.

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

All Ipify 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap conceptually, e.g., ask_pipeworx / ask_pipeworx_beta / ask_pipeworx_grounded / deep_research all perform data retrieval, and bet_research / polymarket_edges / polymarket_arbitrage cover prediction markets with unclear boundaries. This overlap forces agents to carefully read descriptions to pick the right tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming is mostly snake_case but inconsistent in pattern: some are verb_noun (compare_entities), some are noun_verb (ai_visibility_check), and some are bare nouns (ipv4) or bare verbs (forget). While readable, the lack of a uniform pattern reduces predictability.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is high for a single server, especially given the server name 'Ipify' which implies a simple IP lookup service. The broad range (from memory ops to prediction market analysis) suggests the tool set is a collection of utilities rather than a coherent, scoped API.

Completeness2/5

The tool set lacks focus: for a server named 'Ipify', basic IP geolocation or ASN lookup is missing. As a general toolkit, it covers many areas superficially but has significant gaps (e.g., no tools for updating or deleting data, no domain-specific lifecycle).

Resources