kalshi_historical_markets

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool is credential-free (no authentication needed) and returns normalized settled rows, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling, rate limits, or output format details. The added context is moderate but not comprehensive.

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 very concise—three sentences—with the core purpose front-loaded. It uses backticks for parameter names and avoids unnecessary words. Every sentence serves a purpose: what it returns, the data source, and parameter constraints. No fluff.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat minimal. It covers the main purpose, credential-free access, and key parameter constraints, but lacks usage guidance, pagination hints beyond the schema, and behavioral details such as error handling or output structure. For a simple read-only query it is acceptable, but it could be more complete.

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%, so every parameter already has a description. The tool description adds little beyond restating the mutual exclusivity (already present in the schema) and the mve_filter enum (also in the schema). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the description provides minimal additional semantic value.

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 it returns normalized settled Kalshi historical market rows from credential-free public market-data JSON, specifying the verb, resource, and source. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related sibling tools like kalshi_historical_market (singular) or kalshi_historical_market_history, relying on the plural 'markets' and 'rows' to imply a list endpoint.

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 alternative Kalshi endpoints. It only mentions mutual exclusivity among tickers, event_ticker, and series_ticker, which is a parameter constraint, not tool selection guidance. An agent cannot decide between this and kalshi_historical_market or kalshi_markets_history based on the description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.