kalshi_exchange_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: that no auth is required and the exact return fields. This is adequate for a simple status endpoint, though it does not cover edge cases like error responses or data freshness.

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 extremely concise: a single question and a single line stating the return fields and auth. Every sentence carries meaning, with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple zero-parameter status check with no output schema, the description adequately specifies the return fields and auth requirements. It could explain the semantics of 'trading_active' vs 'exchange_active' in more depth, but the field names are self-explanatory and the tool's simplicity makes this acceptable.

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 vacuous (100% for an empty schema). There is nothing for the description to add, so the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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?

The description clearly states the tool checks whether the exchange is currently up and trading, and returns specific fields (exchange_active, trading_active). This distinguishes it from siblings like kalshi_exchange_schedule and kalshi_exchange_announcements, which have different purposes.

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 clear context that this is a real-time status check ('right now') and notes that no authentication is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, but for such a simple, self-contained tool, the context is sufficient.

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