kalshi_market

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only data fetch and gives a sample URL, but discloses nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, or how the orderbook/trades payload is shaped. Significant gaps remain for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the example URL is useful, but the opening sentence is duplicated verbatim ('— Single Kalshi market depth...' repeated), which is pure waste. Size is otherwise short and appropriate.

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 three-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate to call it correctly. However, it could have explained the structure of the orderbook/trades response since no output schema exists, and it lacks usage context, leaving it minimum-viable.

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 schema already documents depth, ticker, and trades fully, including defaults and max values. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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?

The description names a specific resource (a single Kalshi market) and the exact data returned (orderbook yes/no levels plus recent trades) for a given ticker. It is clearly distinguishable from kalshi_probability, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from the generic 'orderbook' sibling, leaving some ambiguity.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. An agent gets no help deciding between this tool, kalshi_probability, or the generic orderbook sibling for a given request.

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