Kalshi exchange status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds context that the tool returns 'availability flags', going beyond annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

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 a single sentence with a brief example, front-loading the key purpose with no wasted words. The example '{}' is minimal but not misleading.

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?

For a simple tool with no parameters and rich annotations, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns (flags). However, there is no output schema, and the description could list the specific flags for completeness, but given the low complexity, it is sufficient.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info since there are none.

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 returns 'current exchange and trading availability flags', which is a specific verb (current) and resource (status flags). The name alone also conveys purpose, and it is well-distinguished from sibling Kalshi tools (e.g., kalshi_candlesticks, kalshi_exchange_schedule) that return different data.

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 tool versus alternatives. However, the purpose is self-evident from the name and description, and the tool has no parameters, so usage is straightforward. Implicitly, it is used to check exchange status.

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