Returns normalized Kalshi multivariate event rows from credential-free public market-data JSON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Rows to return, default 25, max 200. | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from a previous Kalshi response. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the source is 'credential-free public market-data JSON', telling the agent no auth is required, and the rows are 'normalized', indicating the output shape is pre-processed. It does not, however, describe rate limits or pagination behavior beyond the cursor param.
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 filler. Every clause ('normalized', 'multivariate event rows', 'credential-free public market-data JSON') carries information. It could be marginally sharper but wastes nothing.
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 the safety profile. What is missing is routing information relative to the crowded kalshi_* sibling set — for a tool in this family, distinguishing scope matters and the description is silent on it.
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% — limit (default 25, max 200) and cursor are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline 3 for a schema-complete tool 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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Returns normalized Kalshi multivariate event rows.' An agent knows this fetches multivariate event data. However, it does not differentiate itself from the many sibling tools (kalshi_events, kalshi_event, kalshi_event_metadata), so the agent cannot tell why to pick this over those without external knowledge.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description never mentions kalshi_events, kalshi_event, or any other sibling, nor does it state a condition (e.g. 'use for multivariate collections only'). The agent is left to infer usage entirely.
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.
