Returns normalized Kalshi series 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, so safety is covered. The description does add meaningful context by noting the data is credential-free public JSON, but it omits pagination behavior, cursor lifecycle, and any rate-limit or truncation notes.
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 tight sentence with no padding and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though so terse that it omits useful routing context rather than being verbose.
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 both params are schema-documented. What is missing is the contextual routing information (what a series is, when to use this vs. kalshi_series_detail) needed to call the right tool.
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 both limit (default 25, max 200) and cursor are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
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 ("Returns") and a resource ("Kalshi series rows"), so the basic action is identifiable. However, it never clarifies what a "series" is in the Kalshi domain (a recurring market template) nor distinguishes this list tool from the sibling kalshi_series_detail, leaving the agent to infer the relationship.
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 is given. The description does not mention kalshi_series_detail, kalshi_events, or any condition for choosing this listing tool over the detail variant, nor when to paginate versus filter.
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.
