kalshi_event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable beyond-annotation context: the exact return shape and that no authentication is needed. This provides behavioral transparency that the annotations do not cover.

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 extremely concise: a purpose sentence, a return shape, and an auth note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains zero filler, 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?

For a simple read tool with 2 fully documented parameters and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It provides the return structure and auth requirement, both important for invocation expectations. It doesn't discuss not-found errors, but that is an edge case beyond the required scope for this tool type.

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 the tool description's 'optionally with its markets embedded' simply restates the with_nested_markets parameter without adding new semantics. The schema already fully documents both parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 retrieves a single event by ticker, optionally embedding its markets. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kalshi_events (list of events) and kalshi_market (single market), making the purpose 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 implies a singular lookup use case, and the schema's note that eventTicker comes from kalshi_events or a market's event_ticker provides workflow context. However, it stops short of explicitly naming alternatives for when not to use this tool, so it's clear but not fully prescriptive.

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