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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful detail about implied probability being derived from the yes bid/ask mid, but does not mention rate limits, pagination, or behavior with no results. The verb 'query' implies a safe read operation, but other behavioral nuances remain undisclosed.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value: identifying the exchange, listing output fields, and noting the optional filter. No redundant content or fluff.

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 read-only query tool with 6 optional parameters, the description covers the key output fields and source context. It lacks explicit mention of default limits (though schema documents them) and potential response formats, but is reasonably complete given the schema richness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides; the free-text filter and unpriced markets behavior are already documented in the schema.

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 identifies the tool as querying live Kalshi prediction markets and enumerates specific output fields (question, implied probability, volume, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_markets by explicitly naming Kalshi and adding the CFTC-regulated exchange context.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (for live Kalshi markets) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. It implies usage without stating when a different tool might be more appropriate, which is a minor gap.

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