Check whether the Kalshi exchange is active and if trading is open at request time; no inputs required.
Kalshi exchange status. Returns the current Kalshi exchange status, with no inputs: exchange_active says whether the exchange is up, and trading_active says whether trading is open at the time of the request. Informational only, not real-time trading data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the response contains two booleans and that the data is informational rather than real-time, which is genuinely useful context. It stops short of stating freshness, caching, or update cadence, so the behavioral picture is partial.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the return-field semantics and the key caveat. No filler.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return shape, and it does by naming both fields and their meaning. The 'not real-time' caveat covers the main risk for a status endpoint. Minor gaps (freshness/latency specifics) keep it from a 5.
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?
Parameter count is zero, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with 'with no inputs,' leaving no ambiguity about the call signature.
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+resource ('Returns the current Kalshi exchange status') and names the two fields it exposes (exchange_active, trading_active), which lets an agent understand the payload without opening a schema. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling kalshi_exchange_schedule, so purpose is clear but sibling routing is left to inference.
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 phrase 'Informational only, not real-time trading data' gives a useful exclusion, telling the agent not to use this for live trading decisions. However, it never states when to prefer this over kalshi_exchange_schedule or other Kalshi tools, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.