kalshi_describe_endpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It describes the tool as showing schema, implying a read-only behavior, but doesn't state whether it fetches live data or is fully local, nor any potential errors. Basic transparency is present, but depth is limited.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, each sentence earning its place. No fluff, clear and efficient.

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 one-parameter introspection tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and usage reasonably well. It doesn't detail error cases or specific response format, but given the tool's simplicity and clear sibling context, it's nearly complete.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'endpoint' already having a detailed description (tool name, operation ID, or path with examples). The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning, so it appropriately sits at the baseline.

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 shows the full input schema for one Kalshi endpoint, listing every path, query, and body field with type and description. It distinguishes itself from siblings like kalshi_call_endpoint (which executes) and kalshi_list_endpoints (which lists endpoints).

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?

Explicitly says 'Look here before calling kalshi_call_endpoint', giving a clear when-to-use context. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the primary use case is strongly conveyed.

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