get_market

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it disclose any error behavior, rate limits, or side effects. For a read-only tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant lack of transparency.

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, precise sentence with no wasted words. The key information (what it gets and how to identify the market) is front-loaded. Perfectly sized for a simple getter.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is arguably sufficient to invoke correctly. However, it omits any usage context, edge-case behavior, or relationship to sibling tools, leaving the agent without a clear decision framework. For a tool in a rich ecosystem of similar getters, this is a moderate gap.

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 compensate. It does clarify that the parameter 'id_or_slug' accepts either a market slug or an ID, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema property label. However, it does not specify how to differentiate slug from ID, format expectations, or behavior when given an invalid value. This is a minimal but real contribution.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('market's details'), and identification method ('by slug (or id)'). It unambiguously distinguishes from search_markets (which lists multiple) and other siblings. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_markets or the kalshi_get_market sibling. There is no mention of when-not to use it, nor any differentiation from the similar kalshi_get_market. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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