kalshi_call_endpoint

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that dedicated tools validate arguments but does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, potential side effects of raw calls, or error behavior–significant gaps for a generic passthrough tool.

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?

Three tight, front-loaded sentences deliver the core purpose, path base, and usage preference without any filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description is adequate for tool selection but not fully complete. There is no output schema, and no behavioral details about responses, authentication, or failure modes are provided. Given the tool's generic nature, more caveats about raw endpoint access would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 75%, and the description adds meaningful context: the base path for 'path' and a concrete example. The 'body' and 'query' schemas are self-explanatory. The method enum covers allowed values, though the description does not elaborate on method-specific nuances.

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 calls any Kalshi API endpoint directly, positioning it as a generic fallback. It distinguishes itself from the many dedicated sibling tools by noting it handles endpoints with 'no dedicated tool loaded.'

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: paths are relative to /trade-api/v2, with an example ('/markets'), and a clear preference is given to dedicated tools because they validate arguments. This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool instead of siblings.

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