Fetches the current market price for a Kalshi market by market_ticker. Returns prices for both yes and no sides. Allows historical lookups via the at_time query parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| at_time | No | Optional Unix timestamp (in seconds) to fetch a historical market price. If not provided, returns the most real-time price available. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return of both yes/no sides and historical lookup via at_time, but the text references a 'market_ticker' parameter that is absent from the input schema. This misleading reference undermines transparency about the actual required inputs.
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 appropriately concise, consisting of two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes value, avoiding unnecessary verbosity.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description must fully contextualize the tool. It fails to explain how the market is specified given the missing market_ticker parameter, does not clarify the meaning of 'dome' or Kalshi-specific terms, and leaves the near-identical sibling dome_market_price indistinguishable. This under-specification hinders effective use.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter (at_time), so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the historical lookup behavior without adding new meaning, and its mention of a non-existent market_ticker parameter introduces confusion rather than clarity.
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 clearly states the tool's function: fetching current market prices for a Kalshi market and returning both yes/no sides. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool dome_market_price, so it misses the opportunity to distinguish itself.
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 implies usage for current or historical price lookups but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over dome_market_price or other price-fetching siblings. There are no exclusions or alternative references, leaving the usage context partially inferred.
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.