Fetch Kalshi's standard exchange trading hours and maintenance windows. Use kalshi_exchange_status for the current open/closed state or kalshi_historical_cutoff for historical market-data limits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and reach are covered. The description contributes the content scope (standard trading hours and maintenance windows), but says nothing about refresh cadence, timezone handling, or auth. Useful but not rich behavioral detail, so a 3.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, with the scoping constraint front-loaded ahead of the routing alternatives. Every clause earns its place.
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?
With an output schema present the description need not explain return values, and it already routes the agent to the correct sibling tools. Nothing needed to call this zero-param tool correctly is missing.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add and no gap to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Fetch) plus the named resource (Kalshi exchange trading hours and maintenance windows), which is distinct from every sibling's data domain. An agent can identify what this returns without opening the schema.
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?
Explicitly names two alternatives and the condition selecting each: kalshi_exchange_status for current open/closed state and kalshi_historical_cutoff for historical market-data limits. Nothing is left to inference about when to use this tool versus those.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
