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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the settled-only scope and the credential-free public source, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about pagination behavior, series/event/ticker mutual exclusivity semantics, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a tool with six filter parameters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. Still, for a filter-heavy list tool with several mutually exclusive selectors, the description omits any indication of scoping behavior or pagination, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the schema.

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 all six parameters (limit, cursor, tickers, mve_filter, event_ticker, series_ticker) are already documented in the schema, including the mutual-exclusivity constraints. The description adds nothing param-specific, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource (returns normalized settled Kalshi historical market rows), which is reasonably specific. However, in a namespace crowded with kalshi_historical_market, kalshi_historical_market_history, kalshi_historical_trades, kalshi_markets_history, and kalshi_historical_cutoff, the description does not differentiate this list-many tool from those siblings.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternatives or when to prefer kalshi_historical_market (single) or kalshi_markets_history. The phrase 'credential-free public market-data' hints at the fetch path but does not route the agent between sibling tools.

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