kalshi_get_market

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

No annotations are provided, and the description is minimal. It does not disclose behavior on missing tickers, error handling, rate limits, or any side effects (though it is clearly a read operation). With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it fails to provide meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 a single sentence with zero redundancy. It directly states the function and key parameter, making it highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 simple get-by-ticker operation, the description is adequate but not fully complete. The output schema exists, so return format is covered. However, it lacks information about behavior when the ticker does not exist, pagination, or any authentication requirements. Given the simplicity, the missing pieces are minor, but the lack of any usage or error guidance keeps it at a mid-level score.

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?

The only parameter, 'ticker', is mentioned in the description ('by ticker'), which adds the context that the tool fetches a single market identified by this string. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the description does not elaborate on format, examples, or constraints. It compensates minimally by naming the field, but does not add substantial value beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'one Kalshi market by ticker', which precisely identifies the operation. It distinguishes this from search_markets (which searches multiple markets) and get_orderbook (which fetches order book data).

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 get_market or kalshi_search_markets. The context of a ticker is implicit, but there is no explicit statement about prerequisites, when to prefer this over search_markets, or when not to use it.

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