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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Public data, no auth needed' and describes the ranking behavior and event/market structure, providing useful safety and context. However, it does not disclose output format or rate limits, leaving some gaps.

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 four concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The category list and child-market explanation add useful context without redundancy. Every sentence contributes, so a 5 is warranted.

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 description provides key context: what is returned (events ranked by volume), auth requirements, and the event-market relationship. Without an output schema, it partially explains return values but omits details like pagination or field structure, leaving minor gaps for a tool with 4 optional parameters.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions categories and child markets but does not add substantive meaning for individual parameters like limit, query, or status. The 25% gap (status enum lacking text description) is not compensated.

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 it searches Kalshi prediction markets and specifies the unique output (events ranked by aggregate 24h volume), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pg_kalshi_market_details or pg_kalshi_trending. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it stops 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 description implies usage for searching Kalshi events by query or category, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling search tools like pg_market_search or pg_kalshi_trending. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so it only earns a 3.

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