Returns the cutoff timestamps Kalshi uses for historical market, order, and trade data migration. Use kalshi_historical_markets to retrieve kalshi historical markets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful context that the timestamps relate to data migration boundaries, but says nothing about freshness, format, or whether the cutoffs change over time.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the sibling pointer. The second sentence is slightly awkwardly phrased ('retrieve kalshi historical markets') but wastes no space.
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 in prose. For a zero-parameter read tool with a clear stated purpose and a named sibling, the description is essentially complete; only explicit usage routing is thin.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter meaning; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. Nothing is missing on this dimension.
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 ('Returns') and resource ('cutoff timestamps Kalshi uses for historical market, order, and trade data migration'), so an agent knows exactly what data it yields. It does not fully differentiate itself from the many kalshi_historical_* siblings, naming only one of them.
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?
It points to kalshi_historical_markets for actually retrieving historical markets, implying this tool is for discovering the cutoff boundary rather than the data. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this tool versus that sibling, only an implied pairing.
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.
