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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the implied probability is derived from the yes bid/ask mid and that the exchange is CFTC-regulated. However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, error behavior, or the meaning of 'unpriced' markets—leaving some behavioral aspects unexplored.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence contributes useful information: what the tool does and what it returns. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has a moderately complex schema (6 optional parameters) and no output schema, so the description must explain return values—which it does by listing the fields. It does not mention the status filter, limit, async behavior, or raw mode, but those are covered in the schema. The core purpose and return structure are adequately conveyed, though additional details on output shape (array vs. object) would improve completeness.

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 fully documents all six parameters. The description adds minimal semantics beyond the schema, only mentioning the free-text filter. It does not compensate with extra context for parameters like includeRaw or includeUnpriced, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool queries live Kalshi prediction markets, distinguishing it from sibling tools like Polymarket. It lists specific return fields (question, implied probability, volume, open interest, close time, URL) and mentions the optional free-text filter, providing a precise verb+resource definition.

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 clear context that this tool is for Kalshi markets, differentiating it from Polymarket or general prediction market search. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5. The context is clear, with no exclusions.

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