kalshi_market

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it uses 'credential-free public market-data', indicating a read operation. However, it does not describe any side effects, rate limits, data freshness, or other behavioral traits that would help an agent understand its runtime behavior.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool has only one parameter and no nested objects, but also no output schema, the description does not explain what fields are in 'one normalized Kalshi market row'. While context from sibling tools might imply typical market data fields, the lack of explicit return format information makes it somewhat incomplete for an agent to fully understand what it will receive.

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 description coverage is 100% (the only parameter 'ticker' has a description in the schema: 'Kalshi market ticker'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Returns one normalized Kalshi market row' from 'public market-data JSON'. It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies the exact resource ('one normalized Kalshi market row'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'kalshi_markets' or 'kalshi_market_history'.

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 mentions it is 'credential-free public market-data', implying no authentication is needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when a client wants a list of markets vs a single market). No when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria are given.

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