kalshi_market_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently lists what data the tool returns, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or whether it is a read-only operation. The absence of such statements is a minor gap, though the tool's nature as a data retrieval endpoint is inferred.

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, well-structured sentence that is concise and free of unnecessary words. It front-loads the key distinction ('One market') and enumerates specific data elements in a clear list, making it easy to grasp at a glance.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete, listing the expected response contents. It falls short only in not mentioning prerequisites, such as how to find a valid ticker, and does not describe the response format (e.g., whether it is a single object). Overall, it provides sufficient context for a single-market detail endpoint.

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 schema describes the only parameter 'ticker' with no additional detail beyond its name, so schema coverage is 0%. The description adds some context by indicating that the tool is for 'One market', which implies the ticker identifies the market. However, it does not explain the ticker format or how to obtain it, so the compensation is limited.

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 that the tool provides a comprehensive view of a single market, listing specific data points such as prices, depth, implied probability, spread width, and estimated fee. It effectively conveys the tool's purpose, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not directly compare with sibling tools like kalshi_markets or kalshi_price_history.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is appropriate when needing a single market's details, nor does it exclude cases such as retrieving multiple markets or historical data. The usage context is only implied by the word 'One market'.

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