Get Kalshi order book

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered, and the description's 'read-only' merely repeats it. However, it adds genuinely non-obvious domain behavior: Kalshi publishes bids only and asks are derived from NO bids via 1 - p, which materially affects how the returned book must be interpreted.

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?

Three compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The mid-sentence line break in the NO-bid/YES-ask explanation slightly disrupts readability but costs no real length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated, and the description supplies the one interpretive fact an agent needs (asks are synthesized from NO bids). The only gap is that it never clarifies the practical choice between this tool and get_order_book, which is the main decision an agent faces.

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%: both 'depth' (clamped 1-100, default 10) and 'ticker' (format example) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail about either parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the live YES order book for a Kalshi market, best levels first') and explicitly contrasts with the closest sibling, get_order_book, noting it returns the same book for the slug 'kalshi:<TICKER>' and also covers the NO side. An agent can tell kalshi_book (YES side only, Kalshi-native) apart from get_order_book without opening either schema.

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 comparison to get_order_book implies when the sibling is the better choice (when the NO side is needed), but it never states a positive condition for choosing kalshi_book instead. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, only an inferred one.

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