kalshi_amend_order_v2

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

Annotations only indicate readOnly=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: explains that 'count' is the updated total/max fillable count (already filled + desired resting), states the HTTP method and path, and clarifies that behavior matches v1. This goes well beyond annotation-only information.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, count semantics, and endpoint/shape clarification. No fluff or repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The schema thoroughly documents all 9 parameters, but there is no output schema and the description does not mention the response shape or error conditions. It also does not distinguish this from the sibling kalshi_decrease_order_v2, which could cause selection confusion. Operational context is partially complete but has clear gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed parameter docs. The description text mostly reinforces what the schema already states about 'count' semantics. Since the schema handles parameter meaning, the description adds little incremental value, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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's purpose: amending the price and/or max fillable count of an existing event-market order. It distinguishes itself from siblings by using the specific verb 'amend' and noting the V2 request/response shape, as well as referencing the exact endpoint. This makes it easy to tell apart from create/cancel/decrease tools.

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?

Usage is implied: if you need to change an existing order's price or count, use this tool. The description mentions consistency with v1 endpoints but does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives like kalshi_decrease_order_v2 or cancel+create workflows. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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