Returns normalized yes/no bid levels for up to 25 Kalshi market tickers from public orderbook JSON. Use kalshi_market_orderbook to retrieve kalshi market orderbook.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tickers | Yes | Kalshi market tickers. |
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety context is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it returns normalized yes/no bid levels, sources from public orderbook JSON, and is limited to 25 tickers at a time. It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but those gaps are minor here.
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 two sentences and front-loads the tool's output and scope. Every sentence earns its place by stating what is returned and routing to the sibling tool, with no redundant explanation.
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?
With high schema coverage, existing annotations, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it conveys output type, source, batch limit, and sibling alternative. It could be slightly stronger if it explicitly framed the batch-vs-single use case, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 100%, with the single parameter documented as 'Kalshi market tickers.' The description adds a useful constraint beyond the schema: the ticker list is capped at 25. This gives the agent information needed to batch correctly, though it does not add further syntax or format guidance.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns normalized yes/no bid levels for up to 25 Kalshi market tickers from public orderbook JSON.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling kalshi_market_orderbook by naming that tool for retrieving the raw market orderbook. An agent can tell this is a batch orderbook normalization tool.
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 names the alternative sibling kalshi_market_orderbook and implies that this tool should be used for normalized bid levels across multiple tickers. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose one over the other beyond that single routing sentence, so the condition is only partially spelled out.
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.
