kalshi_get_markets

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds behavioral constraints like mutually exclusive timestamp filters, but it also has a discrepancy: it omits the 'paused' status that appears in the schema. It reveals the HTTP endpoint but doesn't describe return format or pagination behavior.

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 poorly structured: a brief first sentence followed by fragmented bullet rules and a broken markdown table. It is longer than needed and hard to parse, failing to front-load the most important information.

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 14 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the response contains and any pagination behavior. It doesn't mention the return payload or overall behavior beyond filtering. The filter compatibility rule is only partially communicated, leaving gaps in understanding for an agent.

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 adds a compatibility table for timestamp filters and status filters, but the table is malformed and largely duplicates information already in the schema (e.g., min_updated_ts incompatibility). It does add the rule that only one status filter may be supplied, which isn't in the schema, but the added value is limited.

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 action ('Get Markets') and resource (markets), and mentions filtering by status. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like kalshi_get_market (singular) or kalshi_get_events, so it's clear but not fully distinguishing.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kalshi_get_market or kalshi_get_events. It only lists filter constraints, not usage context or exclusions.

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