kalshi_get_orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context about the historical cutoff and the guarantee that resting orders are always available, which goes beyond annotations. It does not describe pagination or response format, but that is secondary for a read-only list endpoint.

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 four sentences and wastes no words. It starts with the action, lists the key constraint, mentions the historical alternative, and includes a documentation link. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (8 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the key behavioral nuance (historical cutoff) and lists statuses. It does not describe the response structure, but the endpoint path and tool name imply the return of order objects. Schema covers parameters well, so the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100% parameter coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the valid status values (resting, canceled, executed) that the schema leaves as 'Possible values depend on the endpoint.' This extra detail clarifies the most important parameter.

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 gets orders and restricts them by status (resting, canceled, executed). It also specifies the exact API endpoint 'GET /portfolio/orders', making the resource unambiguous. This differentiates it from the singular 'kalshi_get_order' and historical orders endpoint.

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 explicitly states when not to use this tool: canceled or fully executed orders before the historical cutoff must use 'GET /historical/orders'. It also notes resting orders are always available, providing clear usage context and an alternative endpoint. This is strong when/when-not guidance.

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