kalshi_structured_target

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context: 'Auth: none needed' and the exact return shape '{structured_target:{id, name, type, details, source_ids}}'. These details go beyond the annotations and help the agent understand what to expect.

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 and front-loaded. The main purpose is in the first sentence, followed by a clear returns line and an auth note. No wasted words.

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 one-parameter get-by-id tool, the description is complete: it states the resource being fetched, the return structure, and authentication requirements. It does not explain field semantics, but the lack of an output schema makes that less critical.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema description for 'id' already says 'Structured-target id. Required — part of the URL path.' The description's 'by id' adds no new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation well.

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 states 'One structured target (entity) by id.' clearly indicating this tool fetches a single structured target by its id. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'kalshi_structured_targets' by emphasizing singular 'One' and 'by id'. However, the verb is implied rather than explicit (e.g., 'get' or 'retrieve'), so a perfect score is not warranted.

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: use this when you have a specific structured target id. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, but the 'by id' phrasing provides basic context. It does not reference the sibling listing tool as an alternative, which would have been clearer.

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