kalshi_get_positions

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

The description adds the HTTP method and path ('Calls GET /portfolio/positions') and hints at a filtering behavior, which is slightly useful beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, or any other operational details. Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive, so no contradiction.

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 a single, run-on sentence that mixes the tool's name with parameter-level details and an endpoint hint. It lacks clear front-loading and organization, making it harder to parse quickly.

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 tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the response contains, how pagination works, or how to use filters effectively. The endpoint mention is helpful but does not fill the gaps.

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 describes all six parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter information; it simply repeats the description of count_filter. Since the schema already provides complete semantics, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with 'Get Positions', which clearly identifies the tool's action and resource, but the rest of the sentence is dedicated to describing the count_filter parameter rather than the tool's overall function. This muddles the purpose and makes it less distinct from sibling tools like get_orders or get_trades.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions the HTTP endpoint and a parameter behavior, without explaining the typical use case, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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