list_markets

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it narrows results to markets that closed or close within a bounded day window and explains that status values follow Kalshi conventions such as active or finalized.

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 short, front-loaded, and wastes no words. The scope and day-window constraint appear immediately, followed by a brief clarification of status.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. Still, for a four-parameter list tool with no schema descriptions, it omits the `limit` parameter and does not clarify whether `status` filters results or merely describes returned records.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the `days` range (1 to 7) and implies `series`, but it never describes the `limit` parameter and does not clearly present `status` as a filter parameter rather than a returned field.

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 states the resource and scope: markets in one series that closed or close within a recent day window, with status, result, and times. It is specific enough to distinguish this from get_market or get_series, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 by the scope: use it for markets belonging to a single series within the last 1-7 days. However, it never names alternatives such as get_market for a single market or search for broader queries, and it does not state when not to use this tool.

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