kalshi_get_market_candlesticks_by_event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific endpoint path and the scope of aggregation, which is useful context, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, timezone handling, or response format. With annotations present, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 concise sentences: one for purpose and one for the exact endpoint. No filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only data retrieval tool with rich schema and annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and select it appropriately. It includes the aggregation scope and endpoint, but omits details about return format or any constraints on the time range, though those are less critical given the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on parameters, but the schema already provides clear descriptions for all five parameters, including the enum for period_interval. Description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema.

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 returns aggregated candlestick data across all markets for a specific event, using the verb 'Get' and identifying the specific endpoint. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool kalshi_get_market_candlesticks, which likely targets a single market.

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 implies usage for event-level candlestick data ('across all markets corresponding to an event'), but it does not explicitly contrast this with market-level alternatives or state when not to use it. No alternative tools are named, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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