Single Kalshi market detail

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructiveness. The description adds value by stating the call cost ($0.002) and specifying the returned fields. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it omits potential error handling or rate limiting details.

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 extremely concise, using only two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and output details, and the second adds pricing information. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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 (single required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: purpose, how to specify the market, what fields are returned, and cost. It does not mention error conditions or pagination, but these are unlikely for a single-market detail tool. The description is largely complete for safe invocation.

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 100%—the 'ticker' parameter is already described in the schema as 'Kalshi market ticker (from search_kalshi_markets).' The description adds no additional semantic information beyond confirming the parameter is a ticker, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 it provides 'full detail for a single Kalshi market by ticker' and enumerates the fields returned (yes/no prices, volume, status, result). This verb+resource combination unambiguously indicates the tool's operation and, in the context of siblings, distinguishes it from search_kalshi_markets which returns a list.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling set includes related tools (search_kalshi_markets, get_polymarket_market), the description does not explain when one should prefer this over others. The use case is implied but not stated.

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