Kalshi outcome attestation — signed settled market resolution (flagship)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the PAID nature, the signing mechanism, offline verification, and the attribution to the market's own result. However, it could have been more explicit about potential failures (e.g., network errors) and the format of the signature, though the mention of 'resolved(bool)' and 'resolution(yes|no|null)' adds clarity beyond what the schema implies.

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 dense but front-loaded with critical information (PAID, signed, resolved). It packs a lot into a few sentences, but it is somewhat run-on and could be broken into clearer points. Still, every sentence contributes value, notably the verification instructions and edge-case behavior.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a complete picture: it explains what is returned (resolved, resolution, resolved_at), how to verify, when to use, and edge cases. For a tool with only 2 params and no output schema, this is exceptionally complete, leaving little ambiguity for an agent.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains the 'ticker' as a Kalshi market ticker and 'side' as optional with values yes|no, adding that it adds 'queried_side' and 'correct'. While the schema already includes enum values, the description clarifies their purpose and impact on the output, which is valuable.

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 this tool attests a settled Kalshi market with a signed resolution, distinguishing it from siblings like predge_attest and predge_sports_attest by specifying 'Kalshi' and 'settled market resolution'. It uses specific verbs like 'attests' and 'VERIFIES OFFLINE' and explicitly contrasts with trader data, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: for settled market resolutions from Kalshi, and when not (e.g., for trader data, as it states it does NOT attest trader data). It also provides conditions like unsettled markets returning resolved:false and unknown tickers returning null without charge, guiding the agent on expected outcomes for edge cases.

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