kalshi_get_withdrawals

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

The read-only and non-destructive hints are already provided by annotations. The description adds the HTTP method and endpoint, which is useful but minimal. It doesn't describe pagination behavior, response format, or any caveats beyond the schema parameters.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first states purpose, the second gives the exact API endpoint. Compact and front-loaded, every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with two optional pagination params, the description plus schema and annotations are adequate. It lacks an output schema, but the description implies the return is withdrawal history. It could mention pagination behavior, but the schema already covers it, so this is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%—both limit and cursor have detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description doesn't add any additional parameter context, so it relies on the schema, which already handles semantics. 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 withdrawal history, with a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'withdrawals'. It also names the exact endpoint (GET /portfolio/withdrawals), distinguishing it from sibling tools like deposits or balance.

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 when to use this tool (when you need withdrawal history) but doesn't explicitly compare it to alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools like deposits are obvious alternatives, but no exclusions or differentiators are mentioned.

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