Skip to main content
Glama

Sardine: Kalshi crypto settlement history

get_live_board

Read-onlyIdempotent

Open Kalshi contracts right now, each with Sardine's historical count. No prices.

    Optionally filter to one market. Each row has the contract, the minutes
    left, the historical settlement rate with its interval and sample size,
    and a one-sentence summary of the count. Kalshi's prices are deliberately
    NOT included (pending Kalshi's Redistribution licence): read them from
    Kalshi's own API, then pass kalshi_ask to get_settlement_rate for the
    fee and the gap.
    

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
marketNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses the critical behavioral constraint that prices are deliberately omitted for licensing reasons and explains the workaround. It also describes the row contents, including minutes left, settlement rate interval, sample size, and summary, which is significant context beyond readOnly/idempotent hints.

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 the core result and the no-prices constraint, then explains row shape and the workaround. It is somewhat verbose but every sentence carries useful information for correct invocation.

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

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be fully explained, and annotations cover safety. The description is complete about the no-prices behavior and row contents, but omits limit semantics, which is the main remaining gap for a parameterized tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains that market can optionally filter to one market, but it never explains the limit parameter, the allowed market enum values, or their defaults, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 description states a specific resource and scope: open Kalshi contracts with Sardine's historical count, explicitly excluding prices. It distinguishes this from the sibling get_settlement_rate by describing the downstream handoff of kalshi_ask to that tool.

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?

It gives clear usage context: optionally filter to one market, and if you need prices, read them from Kalshi's API and pass kalshi_ask to get_settlement_rate. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance versus other board-like siblings, but the intended workflow is clear.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources