kalshi_snapshot_now

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it appends to a history ('adds to line-movement history'), covers all open NFL markets, and writes to a specific database. It also mentions the existing schedule, which is useful context. However, it does not mention whether the operation is idempotent, how long it might take, or any side effects like API rate limits.

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 front-loads the primary action and includes essential details (scope, destination, append behavior, schedule). Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core behavior well: what it does, the scope, the target, and the schedule. It is complete for triggering a snapshot, though it omits any return value or confirmation behavior, which would be expected if the tool returns a result. However, this is a minor gap for such a simple tool.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Per rubric, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed since there are no parameters to explain.

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 action ('Record a price snapshot') and the exact resource scope ('ALL open NFL markets') as well as the destination ('into kalshi.duckdb'). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like kalshi_markets or kalshi_price_history, which likely list or query markets rather than record snapshots.

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 a manual trigger for a normally scheduled operation ('Also runs on the 6h schedule') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of sibling tools or exclusions, so the usage context is only implied.

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