kalshi_cancel_order_v2

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds the HTTP method/path and the reduced response shape, which is useful technical context, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as irreversibility, prerequisites, or error behavior. It adds some value beyond annotations but not rich 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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and every sentence contributes information (endpoint, response shape, HTTP method). There is no redundant or filler content.

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 single-order cancellation tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential action, endpoint, and response shape. It leverages schema descriptions for parameters and annotations for destructive behavior. Minor gaps include not explaining when to use V2 vs. batch cancel, but the overall context is sufficient for a well-defined operation.

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 75%, and most parameters have clear descriptions in the schema (e.g., subaccount, market_ticker). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it earns the baseline score for high coverage. The description mentions the return fields but not parameter usage details.

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 identifies the tool as the V2 endpoint for cancelling event-market orders, using a specific verb ('cancelling') and resource ('orders'). It distinguishes itself from related tools like batch_cancel_orders_v2 by emphasizing the V2 response shape and the specific return fields.

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 implies use for single order cancellation with the V2 response shape, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as batch_cancel_orders_v2 or the original cancel endpoint. No exclusions or alternative options are mentioned, leaving the usage context somewhat implicit.

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