kalshi_get_market_orderbook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: only yes and no bids are returned (no asks), with a clear explanation of the binary market equivalence. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent predict the response shape. No annotation contradiction is 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 moderately sized but starts with a redundant phrase ('Get Market Orderbook Endpoint for getting the current order book') and ends with an ellipsis, making it feel unfinished. The explanation of the bid/ask equivalence is valuable but could be tightened. Overall, it is not as concise or polished as it could be.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with complete schema coverage and safety annotations. The description adds essential context about the orderbook structure (price levels, quantities, order counts) and the rationale for bid-only responses, which is particularly useful since there is no output schema. It does not mention the depth parameter, but that is well-documented in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for this tool.

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 parameters (ticker, depth) have complete descriptions in the input schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting (100% coverage). The description only mentions the ticker via the endpoint path and does not elaborate on depth or any parameter semantics beyond the schema. Thus, the description adds no extra parameter meaning, keeping this at the baseline of 3.

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 gets the current order book for a specific market with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Market Orderbook'). It also explains the bid-only content, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool 'kalshi_get_market_orderbooks' (plural), so it misses the distinguishing statement that would earn a 5.

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 context about the data returned and explains that asks are implicit from yes bids, which implies when this tool is useful. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like the plural orderbook endpoint or the market endpoint, nor does it give exclusions. Usage guidance is largely 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.