Retrieve recent public trades for any Kalshi ticker to analyze market activity and price movements. Specify ticker and optional limit to get trade data.
Recent public trades for a Kalshi ticker.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| ticker | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that trades are 'public', implying read-only access, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, does not mention rate limits, pagination, or the nature of the returned data. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about important behavioral aspects.
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 no wasted words, which is concise. However, it is under-specified: while it conveys the core purpose, it omits necessary detail about parameters and usage. It is not verbose, but the brevity reduces its utility, making it borderline between adequate conciseness and excessive terseness.
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 presence of an output schema, return format may be defined there, but the description still lacks essential context for calling the tool correctly. It does not clarify the ticker format, the meaning of the limit parameter, or how this tool relates to other market data tools. For a simple tool with two parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete.
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?
Input schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It mentions 'ticker' as a Kalshi ticker but provides no guidance on how to obtain or format it, and it completely omits 'limit' (which has a default of 50 but its effect on the result is unexplained). The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.
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 'Recent public trades for a Kalshi ticker' clearly indicates the tool retrieves public trade data for a given ticker. It is specific to trades, distinguishing it from siblings like get_orderbook and price_history, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The lack of a verb is mitigated by the tool name 'kalshi_get_trades', which implies retrieval.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_orderbook or price_history, nor does it state any prerequisites like needing a valid ticker from search_markets. An agent would have to infer usage solely from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.