kalshi_get_market_orderbooks

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it returns only yes bids and no bids (no asks), explains the binary market equivalence, and provides a concrete example. This adds significant context about the response structure and rationale.

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 somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds value, explaining the order book behavior and example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. A slightly more concise version could earn a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return shape. It partially does so by describing yes/no bids and price levels, but the truncated ending leaves the quantity field incompletely specified. Overall, it provides enough context for a read-only, single-parameter 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?

The schema already fully documents the 'tickers' parameter with a clear description and constraints. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 fetches the current order books for multiple markets in a single request, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling singular orderbook tool by emphasizing 'multiple markets' and the single-request efficiency.

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 fetching orderbooks for multiple markets, but does not explicitly contrast with the alternative kalshi_get_market_orderbook for a single market. It lacks clear when-to-use vs alternatives guidance.

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