kalshi_get_structured_target

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds the fact that it calls a GET endpoint, which is consistent with the annotations. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral context such as error handling, rate limits, or specific return structure. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is warranted.

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 two sentences long, direct, and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. The phrase 'Get Structured Target Endpoint' is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but it does not repeat unnecessary information. The explicit endpoint call is a useful addition. It is concise and well-structured, earning a 4 for efficiency with minor redundancy.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It identifies the resource, the endpoint, and the input. However, it does not explain what a 'structured target' is or what fields the returned data contains, which could be helpful given the niche term. The simplicity of the tool and the presence of annotations make this a minor gap, so a 4 is given.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter structured_target_id, describing it as 'Structured target ID.' The tool description adds no further detail about the parameter format, source, or examples, but the schema already documents it. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's function: 'Get Structured Target Endpoint for getting data about a specific structured target by its ID.' It uses the specific verb 'get' and the resource 'structured target by ID,' which distinguishes it from the sibling tool kalshi_get_structured_targets (plural) that presumably lists all targets. The explicit endpoint call reinforces the purpose.

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 the use case: when you need data about a specific structured target identified by its ID. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like kalshi_get_structured_targets for listing, but the context is clear and unambiguous. A score of 4 is appropriate for clear context without explicit exclusions.

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