kalshi_get_exchange_schedule

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe, read-only operation. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as response format, pagination, or side effects. The only extra is the HTTP endpoint, which is not a behavioral trait.

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 very brief but includes a redundant first sentence ('Get Exchange Schedule Endpoint for getting the exchange schedule') which essentially restates the tool name. The second sentence adds a useful endpoint 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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and read-only annotation, but the description does not describe what the exchange schedule contains or what the response looks like. Since there is no output schema, the agent lacks information about the return value, making this minimally 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 input schema has no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 retrieves the exchange schedule and specifies the exact endpoint (GET /exchange/schedule). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like kalshi_get_exchange_status which deals with status rather than the schedule.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does without mentioning alternative approaches, prerequisites, or use cases.

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