Search/list open Kalshi prediction markets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint (true), openWorldHint (true), idempotentHint (true), and destructiveHint (false), so the behavioral profile is well-covered. The description adds useful cost information ($0.003 per call) but does not elaborate on rate limits, pagination, or what happens on empty results. With annotations handling most behavior disclosure, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 two sentences: the first clearly conveys purpose and outputs, the second adds pricing context. No filler. It is front-loaded with the key action and result. Could be slightly improved by stating the data source or structural note, but overall efficient.

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 is a simple search (2 params, read-only, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. However, with no output schema, the description should clarify the return format more explicitly – e.g., is it a list of objects? What fields exactly? It mentions fields but not structure. For a non-complex tool, this is acceptable but leaves some ambiguity.

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 100% and both parameters have descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema – 'q' and 'limit' are already described in the input schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description could provide example values or clarify that 'q' is a keyword filter (already stated) and that 'limit' is a string, not integer.

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 searches or lists open Kalshi prediction markets, and lists the returned fields (title, bid-ask, volume, close time). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_polymarket_markets by mentioning 'Kalshi' and 'regulated US event contracts', though it could more explicitly contrast with the sibling get_kalshi_market.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. While the sibling list includes get_kalshi_market, search_polymarket_markets, and web_search, no comparison or when-to-use advice is given. The mention of '$0.003 per call' pricing is useful cost context, but usage boundaries are absent.

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