kalshi_candlesticks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe, idempotent read. The description adds the return format and auth requirement, which is useful context. It doesn't disclose potential rate limits or pagination behavior, but given the strong annotations, the added value is sufficient.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, then return format and auth. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or redundant wording.

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?

For a simple read-only data tool, the description provides the core information: purpose, scope, return shape, and auth. It does not state time-window limits or pagination behavior, but given the straightforward nature and rich annotations, the gap is minor.

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%, meaning each parameter is already documented with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., period_interval mapping is already in the schema). Per the rubric, baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 returns OHLC price candlesticks for one market over a time window, with 1m/1h/1d periods. The phrase 'one market' distinguishes it from the batch sibling, and the tool's scope is specific and unambiguous.

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 notes 'Auth: none needed,' which is a practical usage guideline. It also cross-references 'polymarket_price_history' as an alternative use case. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over kalshi_candlesticks_batch or other siblings, so it lacks an exclusionary note.

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