kalshi_get_trades

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe read operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable context beyond annotations, including that block trades are included by default, that the response is paginated, and the specific fields returned (ticker, price, quantity, timestamp). This adds meaningful behavioral detail.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. It includes some redundancy ('Get Trades Endpoint for getting all trades') and has a truncated phrase ('defaults to…'), but overall it efficiently covers key points without excessive fluff.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately informs the agent about the response contents (market ticker, price, quantity, timestamp) and covers pagination and block trade filtering. It is slightly incomplete due to the truncated defaults text, but otherwise covers the essential context for a read-only list endpoint.

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 reference the 'limit' and 'is_block_trade' parameters but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already documents. The schema descriptions are thorough, so the description adds marginal value in this dimension.

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 gets all trades for all markets, specifying the verb 'Get', the resource 'Trades', and the scope ('all markets'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kalshi_get_fills, which presumably handles user-specific fills.

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 clear usage context: it explains that block trades are included by default and how to filter them, and mentions pagination with the limit parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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