kalshi_get_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable context about the historical cutoff and the exclusion of multivariate events, which are useful behavioral traits beyond the annotations. No contradictions exist.

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 relatively short and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get all events'). It includes necessary caveats and alternatives without excessive detail. The only minor redundancy is starting with 'Get Events' immediately followed by 'Get all events', which slightly hurts conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states the endpoint, exclusions, and historical cutoff behavior. It does not detail the response structure, but the tool name and schema strongly imply a list of events, and parameter descriptions cover pagination and filtering. Overall, it is complete enough for effective use.

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?

All 9 parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, keeping the score at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 it retrieves all events while explicitly excluding multivariate events, which distinguishes it from the sibling tool kalshi_get_multivariate_events. The phrase 'Get all events' is a specific verb+resource statement, and the historical cutoff note clarifies 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 an explicit alternative for multivariate events ('use the GET /events/multivariate endpoint'), which directly guides tool selection. It also notes that all events are accessible regardless of historical cutoff, implying comprehensive coverage. However, it does not mention when to use this over other event-related tools like kalshi_get_event.

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