Live Kalshi market list with bid/ask spreads, volume, open interest, and close dates.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "kalshi_markets"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| category | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that data is live and which metrics are included (bid/ask spread, volume, open interest, close dates), but says nothing about read-only safety, pagination, rate limits, or authentication. That is useful but partial disclosure for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
A single efficient sentence that front-loads the resource and venue, then lists the payload fields. No wasted words, though the field enumeration could be trimmed or supplemented with parameter guidance.
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, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description should cover both parameters and basic behavior. It partially compensates by naming return fields, but leaves the two input parameters and paging/limit semantics entirely unexplained.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the two undocumented parameters (limit, category), yet it never mentions either. An agent cannot learn from the description what 'category' means or that 'limit' caps results at 100.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Live Kalshi market list') and enumerates the data fields returned, which tells an agent exactly what this tool provides. It does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like polymarket_market_scan or trending_markets, so it falls short of a 5.
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 word 'live' implies a current-snapshot use case, but there is no statement of when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., polymarket_market_scan, odds_feed, x402_market_radar) or any exclusions. An agent must infer applicability from the venue name alone.
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.