Kalshi Scraper | Fast & Reliable

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/openWorld/destructive=false), the description discloses that each call triggers one Apify Actor run via the hosted MCP gateway, requires the caller's own APIFY_TOKEN, and consumes the caller's Apify account — useful operational context an agent could not infer from annotations. It restates read-only, which the annotations already cover, and says nothing about credit cost or run duration/rate limits.

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 labeled sections (When to use / Returns / Behavior / Docs) are well organized and front-loaded. However, the entire first block — the title restated plus 'Fast, reliable, and structured for analysis. Ideal for traders, researchers, and data teams' — is promotional filler that adds no selecting or invoking value.

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?

Returns are explained (one dataset row per result plus run/dataset IDs for paging), and with no output schema that is necessary and done well. But for a 7-parameter, zero-required tool with redundant URL inputs and a nested proxy object, the description leaves the caller without any input-shaping guidance, which is the main thing missing before invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no guidance on the parameter set at all, which is a real gap here: startUrls, targetUrl and targetUrls (self-described as 'optional alias for startUrls') overlap, and nothing tells the agent which to prefer or whether searchQueries can be combined with URLs.

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 a specific verb and resource: fetch live prediction-market data (tickers, categories, prices, volume) from Kalshi.com. That is clearly distinguishable from most siblings, though the opening line is padded with marketing ('Fast & Reliable', 'Ideal for traders, researchers, and data teams') and it never explicitly contrasts itself with the Polymarket scraper sibling.

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?

A dedicated 'When to use' line gives a concrete condition: when you need current Kalshi prices, volumes and categories. It does not state when NOT to use it, nor does it point at alternatives among the sibling scrapers, so it stops short of the full routing guidance a 5 requires.

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