kalshi_get_incentive_programs

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds some context by explaining what incentives are and the underlying API endpoint ('Calls GET /incentive_programs'), but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or what fields are returned. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 relatively short but contains redundancy: 'Get Incentives List' is awkwardly phrased and partially repeats the tool name. It uses three sentences; the third sentence about the API endpoint could be seen as extra, though it adds specificity. The structure is front-loaded with the purpose, but the wording could be tightened.

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 read-only list tool with good annotations and fully described parameters, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what incentives are and mentions the endpoint. However, it does not describe the return format or any pagination behavior, which could be relevant given the limit/cursor parameters. Since no output schema exists, a bit more detail about the response would have been helpful.

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 100%, with each parameter having its own description and enums. The description only says 'optional filters,' which adds no meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema fully documents all parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description provides no extra semantic value.

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's purpose: 'List incentives with optional filters' and clarifies what incentives are ('rewards programs for trading activity on specific markets'). The verb 'Get/List' and the resource 'incentives' are specific, and the tool name aligns with the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle other resources. However, the awkward phrasing 'Get Incentives List' slightly detracts from otherwise clear purpose clarity.

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 usage—it tells you what the tool does and that filters are optional—but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No comparison with sibling tools is provided, so guidance is only implied by the resource name and description.

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