Skip to main content
Glama

words

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the matching strategy (token-overlap matcher in both modes), failure and warning behavior (compatibility_codes can be non-empty even when pairs are returned), never-pairing rule for unknown metric_type/match_subtype, semantics of null temporal_alignment, fee treatment (spread is gross, not net tradeable edge), and skipped-comparison counters. This is unusually transparent about limitations and edge cases.

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, but it is organized with clear labels (TWO MODES, RESPONSE, SAFETY FIELDS, Codes) and every section carries necessary safety or behavioral context that the absent output schema would otherwise leave unexplained. It is not as economical as a two-sentence definition, but given the tool's complexity and the lack of an output schema, the length is largely earned rather than padded.

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 thoroughly: it describes the shape of the response (leg-by-leg prices, top_spreads_pp, compatibility fields, skipped_unclassified, low_confidence_pairs, temporal_alignment, fees_note), defines all warning codes, and explains safety semantics. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly, interpret warnings, and avoid treating gross spreads as net tradeable edge.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the schema already documents all three parameters, the description adds meaning that the schema alone does not: topic selects one of ten pre-mapped shortcuts, kalshi_event_ticker and polymarket_event_slug override the topic-mapped side in explicit mode, and both modes run the identical matcher with identical disclosures. This is exactly the kind of load-bearing relationship information an agent needs to select and combine parameters correctly.

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 defines the tool as a cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question, which is specific and distinct. It further clarifies the two operational modes (topic shortcuts and explicit pairings) and states what the output means (raw probabilities and top spreads in percentage points). This is enough for an agent to know exactly what the tool does and how it differs from single-venue siblings.

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 invocation modes—pre-mapped topic shortcuts versus explicit kalshi_event_ticker + polymarket_event_slug pairings—and warns that most pre-mapped topics currently return compatibility warnings, so pre-mapped is not synonymous with tradeable. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when to choose this over polymarket_arbitrage/polymarket_edges, so it falls just short of full alternative-routing guidance.

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

All words 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, and find_related with syn/rhy options duplicates find_synonyms and find_rhymes. The six Polymarket tools and four entity-research tools also have fuzzy boundaries, so agents will struggle to reliably pick the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Conventions are mixed: most tools follow verb_noun (ask_, find_, compare_, validate_) but several are bare nouns or noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alertes, recent_changes) and others are bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe, unsubscribe). The server name 'words' matches only five of 36 tools, adding further confusion about what to expect here.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well into the heavy range, and the set bundles word lookups, a universal data router, six Polymarket tools, memory, subscriptions, and meta-utilities under one server. Many of these would be better split into dedicated, purpose-scoped servers.

Completeness4/5

For the dominant data-research and prediction-market scope, the surface is strong: grounded lookups, deep reseach, entity profiles, compareions, change feeds, claim verification, edge scanners, fill-risk checks, subscriptions, and memory are all covered. Minor gaps exist: taking 'words' literally there is no defintion or spelling tool, and there is no generic open-web search, but as a data-research toolkit it is quite complete.

Resources