kalshi_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions pagination via cursor and the return structure (cursor, events array with fields, milestones). It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description is adequate but lacks full transparency.

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?

Description is two sentences plus a brief return structure and example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses whitespace effectively. Every sentence adds value with no redundant information.

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?

The description provides the return structure and mentions filters and pagination. However, it does not explain how cursor pagination works (e.g., pass cursor from response to get next page), what 'milestones' are, or how 'with_nested_markets' affects the response. For a list tool with multiple optional parameters, this lacks completeness for effective autonomous use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain all parameters. It mentions filtering by 'series or status', covering the 'series_ticker' and 'status' parameters. However, it does not explain 'limit', 'cursor', or 'with_nested_markets'. The pagination is implied by 'cursor' but not explicitly described. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to infer parameter usage.

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?

Clearly states that this tool returns an event catalogue (a list of events, each grouping related markets) with filtering by series or status, and pagination. The name 'kalshi_events' and the description differentiate it from 'kalshi_event' (singular) which is a sibling tool for a single event. The description provides a specific verb ('catalogue') and resource ('events'), making purpose unmistakable.

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 usage for listing events with optional filters, which is clear from context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'use kalshi_event for a single event, use kalshi_markets for markets within an event'). Still, the context provided is sufficient for an informed agent.

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