kalshi_get_settlements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description mentions 'GET' which aligns with read-only behavior. It adds minimal context about 'historical track' but does not disclose pagination behavior, time range defaults, or other response details. No contradiction with 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 extremely concise, using two short sentences. The first sentence states the action and resource, while the second provides the exact endpoint. The word 'Endpoint' is mildly redundant, but the description is front-loaded and free of unnecessary 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?

With 7 optional filter parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse to give the agent a full picture of the tool's capabilities. It doesn't explain what settlements are, how pagination works, or what the response contains. The schema covers parameters but lacks an overview that the description should provide.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description does not need to explain them. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool retrieves the member's settlements historical track and calls GET /portfolio/settlements. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on settlements and the specific endpoint. The phrase 'Get Settlements Endpoint' is slightly redundant with the tool name but not misleading.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kalshi_get_fills or kalshi_get_trades. It does not mention use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites. While it implies usage for settlement history, it lacks explicit contextual direction.

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