Get Kalshi market

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

The only behavioral claim ('read-only') merely restates the readOnlyHint annotation, so it adds no value beyond structured data. With annotations already covering readOnly, idempotent, destructive, and openWorld, the description contributes nothing new such as error behavior for an unknown ticker.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, placing the identifier (ticker) before the parenthetical qualifier. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

The output schema means return values need not be explained, and the operation is simple. Still, in a sibling set crowded with market-listing and market-fetching tools, the absence of any disambiguation makes the definition only minimally complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry the ticker parameter's meaning. Saying 'by ticker' does identify the key as a market identifier, which is minimal but real compensation; it gives no format or example, so it only partly fills the gap.

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 one Kalshi market by ticker'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as get_market, kalshi_markets, and list_markets, leaving the agent to guess which one to call.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this over get_market, kalshi_markets, or list_markets, which overlap heavily in this sibling set. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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