kalshi_historical_markets

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 states the tool is credential-free and returns public data, which implies safety, but it does not disclose rate limits, data freshness, whether it is read-only, or any destructive potential. For a data retrieval tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 concise, with three sentences that front-load the purpose. It avoids unnecessary details but could be better structured (e.g., bullet points for mutual exclusivity). The length is appropriate, and every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, all optional, and no output schema. The description explains parameter relationships but does not describe the output structure or what fields the rows contain. For a tool that returns data, this is a gap. However, the tool is relatively simple, and the description covers the essential usage patterns.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'tickers', 'event_ticker', and 'series_ticker' are mutually exclusive, and that 'mve_filter' accepts 'exclude'. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, which only state the filter names. The description also implies cursor usage for pagination.

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 data. It specifies the mutual exclusivity of filters, which gives a sense of scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like kalshi_historical_market or kalshi_markets, missing an opportunity to clarify when this tool is preferred.

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 through filter mutual exclusivity but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It mentions the mve_filter enum but does not explain the context of multivariate events. Without a when-to-use section, the agent must infer from the tool name and siblings.

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