kalshi_intra_exchange_instance_transfer

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint false) and non-destructive. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the purpose, such as authentication, balance requirements, or side effects, so it offers little beyond the 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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficient.

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 there's no output schema and this is a mutating operation, the description should explain what happens on success, prerequisites, or return values. It only states the endpoint, leaving the response and behavioral context undocumented.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the description doesn't need to compensate. The description doesn't add parameter details, but baseline 3 applies given high schema coverage.

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 transfers funds within the same account, using a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'within the same account' differentiates it from subaccount transfer tools, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage for intra-account transfers but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. subaccount transfer or other alternatives. Context is present but exclusions are missing.

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