kalshi_apply_subaccount_transfer

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

The description discloses that the tool transfers funds and calls POST /portfolio/subaccounts/transfer, which conveys a mutating action. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not elaborate on potential side effects, error conditions, or whether the transfer is reversible. It adds a bit of context beyond annotations but not rich behavioral detail.

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 concise and well-structured: three sentences covering purpose, subaccount ranges, and exchange_index, followed by the endpoint. No redundant information or filler. Every sentence contributes meaningful detail.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description covers the key domain concepts: subaccount numbering, exchange_index, and the POST endpoint. It does not mention idempotency (though the schema covers client_transfer_id) or clarify the distinction from sibling transfer tools, leaving a small gap in context.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds clarifying context for subaccount numbering and exchange_index (e.g., 'Set exchange_index to apply the transfer on a specific exchange shard'), which is helpful but not essential given the schema's thoroughness. It earns a baseline 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 function: 'Transfers funds between the authenticated user's subaccounts.' It provides a specific verb and resource, and adds detail about subaccount numbering. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like kalshi_intra_exchange_instance_transfer, which also involves transfers.

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 gives parameter-level guidance ('Use 0 for the primary account, or 1-63') and explains exchange_index, but it lacks any guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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