kalshi_get_user_data_timestamp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds meaningful behavioral context: the timestamp is approximate, there is typically a short delay, and it specifies exactly which data endpoints are covered. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand the reliability and scope of the value.

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 verbose and not tightly front-loaded. The opening 'Get User Data Timestamp' is a restatement of the tool name, and the delay/WebSocket context, while useful, is placed before the core explanation. The description could be more concise by stating the purpose first and trimming redundancy, though it is not excessively long.

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 zero-parameter timestamp endpoint with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the timestamp represents, which endpoints it validates, and notes the approximate nature. It does not specify the exact return format, but with no output schema and a simple value, this is reasonably complete. The context about delays and WebSocket adds operational value.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously, since there are no properties). No parameter-level explanation is needed. The description does not need to compensate for undeclared parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: providing an approximate timestamp for when user data (balance, orders, fills, positions) was last validated. It names the specific endpoints covered and the HTTP call. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, so it falls slightly short of full distinction.

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 includes usage context: there is a delay in API data, and it recommends combining responses with WebSocket data for accuracy. This implies when the timestamp might be useful, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The guidance is more about API usage in general than about this specific tool's selection.

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