Polymarket vs Kalshi side-by-side

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot convey — auto-matching only succeeds when strikes/numbers, dates, comparator and title similarity align, otherwise explicit IDs are needed. It does not explain what happens when matching fails or how results are ordered.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The second sentence is dense with matching criteria but each clause carries real operational weight.

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?

With no output schema and only read-only annotations, the description carries the burden and mostly meets it: the comparison output and matching preconditions are stated. Remaining gaps are the undocumented limit/minSimilarity semantics, which an agent would have to guess.

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% for 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and does so only partially: it explains polymarketSlug/kalshiTicker and implies query drives auto-matching, but limit and minSimilarity are never defined, and no formats (slug shape, ticker shape) are given.

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 names a specific verb and resource pair — side-by-side odds for the same question on Polymarket and Kalshi — plus the added output value (the probability gap). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_market_odds (single venue) and search_markets, since comparison across two venues is the defining act.

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?

It lays out two concrete invocation paths: auto-matching from a query (with the conditions that must hold), or explicit polymarketSlug + kalshiTicker. That tells the agent when each mode applies, though it never names an alternative tool or states when not to use this one.

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