Kalshi exchange schedule

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, signaling safe, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds specific behavioral context: the tool returns trading hours and maintenance windows, which is valuable beyond annotations. No contradictions exist.

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 short and front-loaded, but the example '{}' is misleading and unhelpful, implying an empty return object instead of clarifying the data structure. This detracts from conciseness.

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 simple nature (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides the core info (trading hours and maintenance windows) but lacks details on format or structure. Annotations cover behavioral safety, but the description could be more complete about what the returned data looks like.

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 zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. Description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets that without adding unnecessary info.

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 tool provides 'Standard trading hours and any maintenance windows' for the exchange, using specific verb-resource language. It distinguishes itself from siblings like kalshi_exchange_status which likely gives current state, not schedule information.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies it's for scheduling purposes, but there are no when-not-to-use statements or references to other tools. Given the simplicity of the tool, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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