Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official

kalshi_trades

List recent Kalshi prediction market trades with count, yes/no prices, taker side, and time. Filter by ticker or created timestamp range and paginate with cursor.

Instructions

Kalshi trades. Lists recent Kalshi trades, up to limit rows (default 25, max 200), continued with cursor. Filter by market ticker and by created time with min_ts and max_ts (Unix seconds, at most 366 days apart). Each trade has its id, count, yes and no price, taker side and created time.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoRows to return, default 25, max 200
cursorNoPagination cursor from a previous Kalshi response
max_tsNoMaximum created Unix timestamp in seconds
min_tsNoMinimum created Unix timestamp in seconds
tickerNoKalshi market ticker filter

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.6.0
  2. Removedv1.6.0
  3. Addedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses pagination via cursor, row limits (default 25, max 200), the return field set (id, count, yes/no price, taker side, created time), and a hard time-window constraint. It omits auth/permission requirements and rate-limit behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Dense and front-loaded, with limits and pagination stated before the filter semantics. The leading fragment 'Kalshi trades.' is redundant with the sentence that immediately follows, a minor waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers filtering, pagination, row limits, and the returned fields, which is close to what an agent needs. Only auth/rate-limit context is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented. The description largely restates schema content (limit default/max, cursor source, Unix seconds, ticker filter); its only genuinely new semantic is the 366-day window between min_ts and max_ts, which is a modest addition.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists recent Kalshi trades') with a scope qualifier ('recent') that implicitly separates it from kalshi_historical_trades. However, it never names that sibling explicitly, so the distinction relies on the agent's inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is for recent trades filtered by ticker/time. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-an-alternative guidance (e.g. historical trades or market history tools), and no exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools