kalshi_search_markets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool pages open markets (not all markets), filters on title/ticker, excludes auto-generated MVE combo shards, and that prices are dollar strings rather than cents. These are non-obvious behaviors that materially affect how results should be interpreted. The only gap is that it doesn't mention pagination behavior or how volume filtering works, but the core transparency is above average.

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 concise three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Search Kalshi markets'). Each sentence adds new information: the API limitation, the filtering/exclusion behavior, and the price format. There is no redundancy, and the structure is logical and easy to parse.

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 description covers key behavioral quirks (no text search, MVE exclusion, dollar string prices) and an output schema exists, so return details are handled. However, it omits documentation of its own parameters, which are all optional but could each affect results significantly. Additionally, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling 'search_markets', which might be a similar or overlapping tool. This leaves gaps for an agent trying to decide on usage.

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 coverage is 0% — the description never mentions 'limit', 'query', or 'min_volume'. It hints that filtering is done on title/ticker, which likely maps to the 'query' parameter, but it does not explicitly confirm this or explain what each parameter does. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate by documenting parameter behavior, but it does not, leaving the agent to guess at semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Kalshi markets'), and goes beyond a simple restatement by explaining the lack of a text-search endpoint and the fallback approach of paging and filtering. It also notes the exclusion of auto-generated MVE combo shards, which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like 'search_markets', so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

The description provides context about why this tool exists (Kalshi has no text-search endpoint) and how it operates (pages open markets and filters), which indirectly informs usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a user wants a full-text search or a more efficient lookup. The 'when' is implied but not directly addressed, leaving the agent to infer usage boundaries.

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