kalshi_get_event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds useful context about the GET endpoint path and the historical cutoff behavior, but doesn't discuss response structure or edge cases. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes relevant domain context. The two sentences explaining what an event is are helpful but slightly verbose; overall, it remains tight and no sentence is wasted.

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 read-only GET tool with two well-documented parameters, this description is complete enough: it provides the endpoint path, the key historical cutoff nuance, and domain background. No output schema exists, but the absence of return format details is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 both parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces event_ticker by mentioning 'by its ticker' but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, especially for with_nested_markets.

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 tool gets event data by ticker, defines what an event is, and highlights a distinguishing capability (all events accessible, even historical ones). This differentiates it from sibling event-specific tools like kalshi_get_event_metadata or kalshi_get_events.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to retrieve a single event's data via its ticker. It also notes that all events are accessible, including those past the historical cutoff. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, stopping short of 5.

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