kalshi_exchange_announcements

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description adds useful context: it specifies that announcements are 'active' (not historical) and includes an explicit 'Auth: none needed' note, which addresses authentication requirements. The return shape is also given, providing behavioral clarity without contradicting the 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 minimal yet complete: a clear definition, a structured return description in a concise format, and an auth note. Each sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy or unnecessary filler. It is well-front-loaded with the core purpose.

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's low complexity, the comprehensive annotations, and the presence of a return format in the description, it is largely complete. The only minor gap is not clarifying how 'active' announcements relate to time or whether they are updated dynamically, but the openWorldHint partially covers this. Overall, the description gives sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 is empty with 100% coverage by definition. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately does not need to explain parameters. It adds no irrelevant parameter information, which is correct.

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 resource: 'Active exchange-wide announcements.' It specifies the type of data returned and includes a functional return format. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve,' the meaning is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like kalshi_exchange_status and kalshi_exchange_schedule.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the difference between announcements and status/schedule, nor any context for when announcements would be relevant. The only extra operational hint is 'Auth: none needed,' which is not a usage guideline.

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