kalshi_mve_collections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'Auth: none needed' and explains the market-to-collection relationship, but provides no additional behavioral details like pagination behavior or filtering semantics. No annotation contradiction.

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 compact and well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, a structured return shape, and an auth note. No filler or 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?

Combined with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides enough context: it names the resource, explains the relationship to markets, lists the return fields, and notes auth requirements. It could mention pagination/filtering behavior, but that is not essential for a moderate-complexity list tool.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters (limit, cursor, status, series_ticker). The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics, so it stays at the baseline score of 3.

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 identifies the resource as 'Multivariate event collections' and clarifies they are 'parlay-style combo products' tied to KXMVE* markets via mve_collection_ticker. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'List' or 'Get', so the action must be inferred from the return shape.

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?

It gives useful context that a market's mve_collection_ticker points here, implying this tool is for looking up parent collections of KXMVE markets. But it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool kalshi_mve_collection or state when this tool should be preferred over alternatives.

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