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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses significant behavioral traits: the Pro vs. delayed 24-hour feed, thesis stripping without a key, the identical impersonal nature of the feed, and that filters only affect selection, never signal content. It even adds a disclaimer that it is not investment advice.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is information-dense and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by return fields, access behavior, filter semantics, and use cases. It is slightly long and includes boilerplate like 'Trade responsibly,' but each substantive sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

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 by listing the fields each alert carries: feed, tier, side, price in cents, model probability, edge in percentage points, and a Kalshi market link. It also covers access tiers, delay, and filter semantics. Minor gaps remain around exact probability units and the sports_arb/nfl feeds mentioned only in the schema.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds value by explaining that filters (feed, min_tier, since) only select which alerts are shown and never alter the underlying signal content, and it names several feed categories in the first sentence.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the edge alerts our models generate on Kalshi' and enumerates the covered feeds (weather, commodities, mispricings). It also clarifies that this is a live feed of pre-generated signals, which distinguishes it from calculation-oriented sibling tools like calculate_ev or scan_mispricings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit use-case phrases: 'Use for "any edge on Kalshi", "weather trade signals", "latest mispricings".' It also explains the filter behavior and access-key implications. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling tool or when not to use this feed, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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