kalshi_structured_targets

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description adds useful behavioral context: 'Auth: none needed', 'Paginated by cursor; page size via page_size', and the response structure. This clarifies pagination behavior and access requirements, which the annotations do not cover. No contradiction exists with annotations.

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 succinct and structured: a one-line definition, a pagination note, a return shape preview, and an auth note. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy. It fronts the core purpose immediately and remains compact.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description compensates by explicitly listing the return fields. It also covers pagination and auth, which are key contextual aspects. However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over the singular kalshi_structured_target, which slightly limits completeness for an agent choosing among siblings.

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 already includes descriptions for all three parameters (type, cursor, page_size), and the description doesn't add new parameter-specific meaning. The phrase 'page size via page_size' repeats schema info, and the return format alone doesn't clarify parameter semantics. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds little beyond that.

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 identifies the tool as Kalshi's entity registry (players, companies, people) that markets resolve against, and its return format indicates a list operation. It distinguishes itself from the singular sibling kalshi_structured_target by being plural, though it doesn't explicitly compare to that sibling. The purpose is unambiguous but could state 'list' or 'retrieve' as the verb.

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 explains the resource and pagination but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like kalshi_structured_target. It implies usage for browsing or fetching entity registry entries, but does not state exclusions or contrast with other Kalshi lookup tools. Text: 'Structured targets — Kalshi's entity registry (players, companies, people) that markets resolve against' gives context but no when-to-use rules.

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