kalshi_get_event_fee_changes

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful context about the meaning of null override fields and the fact it calls GET /events/fee_changes. It does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or response format, but given the read-only nature, this is acceptable.

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 moderately concise but awkwardly structured. It begins with a repeat of the tool name, then a run-on explanation, and ends with the HTTP call. It includes useful details about null override semantics but could be tightened into more focused sentences. The structure is not terrible, but it is not well front-loaded or elegantly organized.

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 tool is relatively simple (a read-only GET) and the annotations cover safety. The description explains the core domain concept (override on series fee structure) and the endpoint. However, it omits any mention of pagination despite having limit and cursor parameters, and there is no output schema to clarify return structure. For a tool with this complexity, it is adequate but not 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?

The schema has 3 parameters, with descriptions for limit and cursor but not for event_ticker. The description does not mention any parameters or their purpose. It only explains the conceptual model of fee overrides, not how to use the event_ticker parameter or how pagination parameters interact. This leaves a significant gap in parameter understanding.

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 fetching event fee changes, with a specific HTTP endpoint. It adds context that these are overrides on the parent series' fee structure, which helps distinguish from the sibling tool kalshi_get_series_fee_changes. However, it starts with a repeated title and could be more explicit about the resource scope.

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 that this tool is for event-level fee overrides rather than series-level fees, giving some usage context. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention pagination or other selection criteria. Sibling tools like kalshi_get_series_fee_changes exist, but the description does not directly compare or contrast.

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