kalshi_trades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it's a public data endpoint ('Auth: none needed'), it's paginated by cursor, and it returns a specific trade structure. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-line overview, a returns specification, an auth note, and a sibling cross-reference. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or redundancy.

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 list-style tool with complete schema coverage and helpful annotations, the description is fully adequate. It covers the return shape, filter capability, pagination, auth requirements, and addresses a potential sibling ambiguity. No critical information is missing.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds only the note that ticker is optional and that pagination uses a cursor, which aligns with existing schema details. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 retrieving 'Recent public trades' with an optional market ticker filter, which is a specific resource and action. It also differentiates from the sibling tool polymarket_trades by noting it 'Also answers this: polymarket_trades,' explicitly distinguishing its scope.

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 provides a clear usage hint by mentioning that it also answers polymarket_trades queries, which is an explicit alternative. However, it lacks more detailed when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the cross-reference could be more explicit about when to choose which tool.

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