kalshi_candlesticks_batch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description need not repeat those. It adds value by stating 'Auth: none needed' and providing the exact response shape (markets, candlesticks fields), which goes beyond the structured metadata. No contradictions with annotations.

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 and front-loaded: first sentence states the core purpose, second gives the return structure, third covers auth and a cross-reference. No wasted words, though the final 'Also answers this: polymarket_price_history' is ambiguous and slightly hurts clarity, preventing a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides the return shape and fields, which is useful. It also notes auth requirements. Combined with the rich annotations and full schema coverage, the tool is sufficiently described for an agent to invoke it. Minor gaps: no mention of pagination or potential response size, but these are less critical given the batch nature and no output schema.

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% and each parameter has its own description. The description only adds 'pass the tickers as a list', which is already implied by the 'Market ticker(s)' schema description. It does not provide additional meaning about period_interval, start_ts, or end_ts beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate both because the schema covers everything and the description contributes little extra.

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 provides OHLC candlesticks for 'MANY markets in one call', which distinguishes it from the single-market sibling kalshi_candlesticks. It also specifies the resource (markets, candlesticks) and the verb implied (get/fetch). The return format is shown, further clarifying what the tool does.

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 use for batch/multi-market requests via 'MANY markets' and notes it also answers polymarket_price_history, offering a hint about overlap with that sibling. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, no exclusions, and no guidance on when to prefer the single-market tool. The mention of polymarket_price_history is cryptic rather than a clear routing instruction.

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