kalshi_search_markets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the absence of a native text-search endpoint, the exclusion of MVE combo shards, and that prices are dollar strings (not cents). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the workaround and pricing detail. Every sentence earns its place with no filler. The structure is highly efficient 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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present. The description covers the purpose and the paging/filtering mechanism but omits parameter semantics and doesn't describe the return structure (e.g., list shape, fields, pagination behavior). While not entirely inadequate, an agent would still be guessing about limits and output format, so it's not fully complete.

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 for explaining parameters. It only hints at the 'query' parameter through 'filters on title/ticker', but it does not explain 'limit' or 'min_volume' at all. The burden on the description is high, and it fails to provide sufficient parameter meaning.

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 (search) and resource (Kalshi markets), and adds specific distinctions: it pages open markets, filters on title/ticker, excludes MVE combo shards, and notes dollar-string pricing. This is not a tautology and sets it apart from generic 'search_markets' siblings.

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 explains the lack of a text-search endpoint and the workaround of paging/filtering, which implies usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives like 'find_markets' or 'search_markets', nor does it give exclusions. Guidance is only implicit.

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