kalshi_market

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, reducing the burden on the description. The description adds that no authentication is needed and shows the complete return object structure. These details provide useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though they don't cover potential rate limits or edge cases.

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 brief and places the core purpose in the first sentence. The return structure is listed concisely and the auth note is clear. However, the final line 'Also answers this: polymarket_market' is terse and ambiguous, slightly harming clarity and structure.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description is quite complete: it covers purpose, input source (via schema), exact return fields, and authentication. Since there is no output schema, the explicit listing of returned fields is especially valuable. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, making this a well-rounded description for the tool's scope.

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?

The only parameter, ticker, has 100% schema coverage, including that it comes from kalshi_markets and is part of the URL path. The description merely says 'by ticker,' which does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'One market's full detail by ticker,' which clearly states the action (getting full detail) and the resource (a specific market) along with the required input (ticker). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kalshi_markets (likely listing many markets) and other kalshi tools. The added note about polymarket_market does not obscure the primary purpose.

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?

Usage is implied by the schema description indicating the ticker comes from kalshi_markets and that this tool provides full details for that ticker. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like kalshi_orderbook or kalshi_trades, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The phrase 'Also answers this: polymarket_market' hints at an alternative but lacks specificity.

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