run_saved_screenRun a saved screen or Chrome-extension condition preset by name or ID to filter Kalshi prediction markets and return matching markets.
Run a screen saved through this server or a condition preset shared by the Chrome extension, by name or id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context — that presets from the Chrome extension are also resolvable — but says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown name or what the run returns, leaving gaps for an open-world lookup.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with no filler. It is arguably over-compressed for the amount of behavior it needs to convey.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should signal what a 'run' produces (presumably matching markets), and it does not. With only two parameters and a read-only annotation, the core is covered, but the return-side expectation is missing.
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 carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that the 'name' argument also accepts an id, which is real added value, but 'limit' (1-100) is completely unexplained, and the name/id dual acceptance leaves ambiguity about precedence and format.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Run a screen') and scopes the source of the screen (saved through this server, or a condition preset shared by the Chrome extension). This clearly separates it from save_screen, delete_screen and list_saved_screens, though the sibling set is never named.
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 implies the precondition (the screen must already exist, saved here or via the extension) but never says when to prefer this over search_markets or get_market, nor what to do if the name is unknown. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.