kalshi_get_market_candlesticks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict this. It adds the useful behavioral nuance about historical data availability, which is meaningful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe response format or rate limits, but the bar is lower with readOnlyHint present.

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 fairly concise but awkwardly phrased, e.g., 'Get Market Candlesticks Time period length of each candlestick in minutes.' It mixes purpose and parameter details in the opening, and the structure could be clearer. Still, it contains only essential information, though redundancy with the schema exists.

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, the description should ideally explain what the response contains. It does not describe OHLCV fields or pagination, but it does note the historical cutoff and provides a link for details. Given the tool's simplicity and read-only nature, this is adequate but not complete.

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 schema carries full parameter details. The description repeats the period_interval valid values (1, 60, 1440) without adding new meaning. It does not introduce any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 market candlesticks for a specific market via a concrete endpoint, providing a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like kalshi_batch_get_market_candlesticks, though the name and endpoint imply single-market 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?

Explicitly provides an alternative for historical data: 'Candlesticks for markets that settled before the historical cutoff are only available via GET /historical/markets/{ticker}/candlesticks.' This tells the agent when NOT to use this tool and where to go instead, which is strong guidance.

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