List the Kalshi series Sardine covers, and whether each is currently served.
Each entry gives the Sardine key (e.g. "BTC-15M"), the Kalshi series
ticker, the window length, and the latest calibration check: the largest
gap, in probability points, between what Sardine published and what
then settled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that entries carry a served/unserved state and a calibration gap metric, which is context, but it says nothing about ordering, cost, or how often the served state changes.
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?
Front-loaded with the core action in the first clause, and the second sentence is a compact enumeration of what an entry contains. The field enumeration partly duplicates the output schema, but it is short enough not to be waste.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, this is nearly complete. The only gap is guidance on how this list relates to the other discovery and data tools.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The example key format ("BTC-15M") is a small bonus for interpreting results.
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?
Specific verb and resource: lists the Kalshi series Sardine covers, with the extra state dimension of whether each is currently served. It is clearly the enumeration tool among siblings like get_live_board and get_track_record, though it never names an alternative to distinguish itself explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before calling get_live_board or get_rate_table, but the description never says when to use it versus those siblings, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.