Catfacts

Quality – / 100not scored

Not scored: fewer than three checks apply, usually because no remote answered a credential-free probe or the server is a local package.

Tool list unknown · tools last changed 2026-10-20 · checked 2026-10-20 13:17 UTC

Tool changes

• 2026-10-20archive_compareremoved

  What changed on a web page between two dates? Resolves the archived capture nearest each date (Internet Archive Wayback Machine, Common Crawl, Arquivo.pt), extracts the readable text of both, and returns a text-level diff: the segments removed and added, a similarity score, and both capture timestamps with their gaps from the requested dates. It diffs readable text, not markup, so a restyled page with the same words reads changed:false. Identical captures answer changed:false with the reason (same capture, identical content digest, or identical text), never an empty diff. A date with no capture within max_gap_days (default 30) answers status "no_capture", naming which side is missing and the nearest captures to it. Typical uses: how a privacy policy, terms of service, pricing or product page changed; whether a statement was on a page at a given time.

• 2026-10-20get_factremoved

  Get a random cat fact. Returns the fact text and character length. Use get_facts to retrieve multiple facts at once.

• 2026-10-20forgetremoved

  Delete a previously stored memory by key. Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data the agent saved earlier. Pair with remember and recall.

• 2026-10-20scan_competitor_ai_presenceremoved

  Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side. Probes each entity (your brand + N competitors) with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, surfaces which is most/least recognized. Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits: "does Claude know about us as well as our competitors?". Returns ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity.

• 2026-10-20pipeworx_trendingremoved

  What other AI agents are calling on Pipeworx right now. Returns the top tools, top packs, and total call volume over a recent window (24h, 7d, or 30d). Useful for: (1) discovering what data sources are hot for current events, (2) confirming a popular tool is the canonical choice before asking your own question, (3) seeing whether your use case aligns with what most agents need. Self-aggregating signal — derived from CF analytics-engine, no PII, just (pack, tool, count). Cached 5min-1h depending on window.

• 2026-10-20research_rowremoved

  Claygent-style per-row research: answer ONE question about ONE company and return a JSON object matching your output_schema, with every field wrapped in its own evidence — {value, evidence_url, quote, status}. status is NEVER self-reported by the model: "found" means this code independently verified the model's quote is a VERBATIM substring of text actually fetched; "inferred" means a value was given but the quote could not be verified; "not_established" means no source answered the field, and its value is always null — never guessed, never a blended score. Sources: "web" fetches the company's own site (entity.domain required — homepage, /about, /leadership) via fetch_url; "catalog" checks entity_profile (SEC EDGAR; resolved:false for a private company is expected, not a failure); "both" (default) tries both. max_cost (USD, default 0.02, max 0.50) scales how many pages are fetched and refuses up front if it is too small to pay for even one extraction call (floor $0.002) — never silently overspends. A row where every source comes back empty costs nothing: every field is mechanically not_established with NO model call made. For a boolean/derived field (e.g. "does this company sell to healthcare"), the quote only has to SUPPORT the value — a descriptive sentence about customers/products counts, the source need not state the answer verbatim. leadership_page_status ("fetched"|"not_found"|"not_attempted", plus leadership_note) says plainly whether a leadership/team page was actually read, so a named-person field (head_of_sales) coming back not_established is distinguishable from "this company just doesn't publish one" vs. "we never checked". model_output_empty:true means the model returned nothing usable (a transport/budget problem) — every field is not_established for THAT reason, never read as 20 individual "no" judgments. Use with a fixed question + schema across many rows for "Claygent over N companies with a hard cost cap" (composes with batch callers). For picking from a fixed label list instead of extracting open fields, use classify_row (cheaper, one model call).

• 2026-10-20resolution_diffremoved

  Field-by-field diff of TWO markets' settlement clauses (one from each of `a` and `b`; either can be Polymarket or Kalshi) — runs resolution_audit on both sides and compares source, settle time, precision, and evidence standard. Returns `equivalent`: "true" only when both sides parsed with enough confidence to compare AND no field conflicts; "false" when a specific conflict was found (differing_fields names which — e.g. ["source","settle_time"] for a Polymarket Bitcoin market settling on Binance's 1-minute candle at noon ET versus a Kalshi KXBTCD market settling on CF Benchmarks' BRTI 60-second average at 5pm EDT — SAME asset, DIFFERENT contract); "unclear" when one or both sides could not be confidently parsed (an absence of evidence is not evidence of equivalence — read raw_clause yourself in that case). Only flags a field as differing when BOTH sides gave a SPECIFIC comparable answer — a named source (e.g. "Associated Press, Fox News, NBC") against a generic one (e.g. Kalshi's "consensus of media organizations") is treated as the same evidence standard, not a conflict, since that is standard election-market boilerplate on both venues. Use this before sizing a polymarket_kalshi_spread pair as a real cross-venue arb, or standalone to sanity-check any two markets you suspect settle on different things.

• 2026-10-20kalshi_weather_edgeremoved

  Prices Kalshi daily high-temperature markets against the NWS forecast for the market's OWN settlement station, and measures whether that forecast actually beats the market. Two modes. LIVE (default): returns the full strike ladder for one city and settlement date with market_prob (mid), forecast_prob, and edge_pp per strike, plus the settlement clause verbatim. BACKTEST (`backtest_days: N`): scores an archived gridded forecast against the market on settled days and returns brier_market vs brier_forecast with a plain-English `verdict`, so the edge is MEASURED rather than asserted. READ THE WARNINGS — they are not boilerplate. (1) These markets DO NOT settle on the NWS. They settle on The Weather Company (weather.com) at a Kalshi station code such as CLINYC, which the response quotes verbatim; so part of every edge_pp is NWS-vs-Weather-Company disagreement about the same day at the same station, which is not mispricing and not tradeable. `settlement_vs_forecast_basis_f` from backtest mode is that part as a number. (2) The station is DERIVED from the settlement clause, never from the city name: Chicago settles at MIDWAY and New York at CENTRAL PARK, so a city-centre forecast would misprice a whole ladder. A station that cannot be resolved yields rows with no forecast and a reason, never a guessed coordinate. (3) forecast_prob assumes a normal distribution around the NWS high whose width is ASSUMED, not fitted (stated in `distribution_assumption`) — run backtest mode to see whether it is calibrated. (4) edge_pp is gross: no Kalshi fees, no bid-ask. MEASURED RESULT, AND IT IS NOT THE FLATTERING ONE: on the first backtest (KXHIGHNY, 13 settled days to 2026-09-11, 58 market observations) the MARKET beat the forecast — Brier 0.1008 for the market against 0.1594 for the archived gridded forecast, lower being better. So on that sample there is NO forecast edge to sell, and a large edge_pp is more likely to be the model disagreeing with a better-informed market than an opportunity. The measured settlement-vs-forecast basis was 1.7F mean absolute over 8 pinnable days, slightly warm-biased, which is a big share of a typical edge_pp on a 2-degree bracket. Re-run backtest_days before believing any edge; if a later sample reverses this, the numbers say so. NWS is US-only, so the ~30 international Kalshi weather series (London, Paris, Tokyo) return market prices with forecast_unavailable rather than a forecast. Precipitation series are listed but not yet priced. Cities: nyc, chicago, los angeles, miami, austin, houston, denver, philadelphia — or pass `series_ticker` for any other (e.g. "KXHIGHTBOS").

• 2026-10-20polymarket_kalshi_spreadremoved

  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` — 11 pre-mapped macro subjects ("fed", "btc", "eth", "cpi", "gdp", "sp500", "recession", "next_pope", "next_uk_pm", "next_israel_pm", "2028_president") auto-fetch the matching event on each venue. You do NOT have to use those exact keys: the topic is resolved through aliases and keywords, so "bitcoin", "fed rate decision", "inflation", "s&p 500" and "next pope" all land on the right subject, and `resolution.topic_matched_by` tells you whether it was an exact key, a known alias, a phrase found inside a longer question, or a single-keyword guess — treat "phrase" and "token" as a GUESS at what you meant. An unresolvable topic returns error:"mapping_failed" with mapping_stage:"topic_unrecognized" and known_topics[]; it never silently falls back to a default subject. (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. `resolution` is returned in BOTH modes and says how each side's identifier was picked (which Kalshi series was queried, how many events came back, whether the chosen one had quoted markets; which Polymarket search query ran and why that event won). Fleet #2064: when two Polymarket candidates tie on resolution time `polymarket_selected_by` now SAYS so, names every tied slug, names the tie-break that actually decided it (the candidate whose metric_type matches the Kalshi series, else lexicographic slug order), and states whether the winner's metric matches the Kalshi series — it used to assert "picked the soonest-resolving" byte-identically on calls that returned DIFFERENT events, because the tie was settled by upstream fetch arrival order. 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 (the two events are about different SUBJECT months — e.g. Kalshi "CPI in October" vs Polymarket "September Inflation"), temporal_alignment_unknown (the subject month could not be parsed on one or both sides — NOT the same as confirmed-aligned; check each event 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 are about the same SUBJECT calendar period, in EITHER mode — this is the period the question is ABOUT (e.g. "September" for a CPI release that settles in October), not necessarily when either side settles; null means it could not be computed (see temporal_alignment_unknown), not that the two sides align. Fleet #2062: this used to compare Polymarket's settlement date against Kalshi's subject month and call a match — fixed to compare subject month to subject month on both sides. FEES: every top_spreads_pp and low_confidence_pairs[] row carries edge_pp_gross (== |sp

• 2026-10-20polymarket_arbitrageremoved

  Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks. Call with NO args for a `trending_scan` of the top ~200 markets by weekly volume; pass `event` for the strongest per-event partition_check, or `topic` for a themed cross-event scan. `event` (recommended for a specific market): pass a Polymarket event slug like "fed-decision-may-2026" or "when-will-bitcoin-hit-150k"; walks child markets, checks date-axis / threshold-axis ordering AND computes the partition_check (sum of YES prices across mutually-exclusive legs — should ≈1; deviations >3pp emit a BUY/SELL EVERY LEG signal). `topic` (for cross-event scanning): pass a seed question like "Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal" or "Fed rate decision"; searches related events across the platform, flattens markets, runs the comparator on the union. Cross-event mode catches "...by May 31" vs "...by Jun 30" patterns that single-event misses. SEMANTIC ANCHOR: cross-event pairs require ≥0.30 Jaccard similarity on question tokens (prevents Powell-Fed-Pause being paired with Powell-DOJ-probe); skipped_low_similarity surfaces the rejected pair count. PARTITION FILTER: drops will-person-X / will-manager-Y / will-someone-else- placeholder slugs; partitions with >20% placeholder fraction return null arb signal. Response: opportunities[] (gap_pp, suggested_trade, reasoning, monotonicity violation context), and in event mode partition_check{sum_yes_prices, gap_from_1, placeholders_filtered, suggested_trade}. FEES: every opportunities[] row and partition_check.arbitrage carry edge_pp_gross (== gap_pp / overround_pp), fees_pp, edge_pp_net, net_positive, plus polymarket_fee_pp, fee_basis and fee_categories[]. BOTH cost components are modeled: Polymarket's own per-category TAKER FEE (fee = shares × rate × p × (1-p), rates crypto 0.07 / sports-economics-culture-weather-other 0.05 / finance-politics-mentions-tech 0.04, geopolitics and world events fee-free; verified against Polymarket's own docs as of 2026-09-13) and Polygon gas (~$0.02/leg). The taker fee dominates: ~$1.75 per 100 shares on a crypto market at 50c versus $0.02 of gas, so rows that looked profitable before fleet #1927 may now show net_positive:false — that is the correction, not a regression. Each leg is priced at ITS OWN market's rate and price (the fee curve peaks at 50c and falls toward both extremes). fee_basis says where the rate came from: 'payload' (read off the market, the normal case), 'category' (mapped from its fee category), 'fee_free', or 'fallback' (rate unknown — charged at the modal 0.05 rather than assumed free, so an unreadable market is never reported as costless). Where fill_check reprices against live depth, this does NOT double-count that spread cost. FILL CHECK: when the partition signal fires, arbitrage.fill_check prices it against live CLOB depth (theoretical_edge_pp_at_book vs realizable_edge_pp at 1000 shares/leg, thin_legs[]) — realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0 means the overround exists only at last-trade, not in the book; do not trade it. For custom sizing use polymarket_fill_risk.

Showing the latest 10. Full history: list_changes · trend: quality JSON.

Checks run on what our credential-free, read-only probes observe; tools are never called and no code audit is performed. How it is computed.