kalshi_list_endpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's scope (searches all endpoints, including non-loaded ones) and return fields (method, path, toolset, loaded status). However, it does not mention auth, rate limits, pagination, or whether it makes a network call. For a simple discovery tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence defines what it does; the second gives usage guidance and return values. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing the return fields (method, path, toolset, dedicated-tool status). It also provides the usage flow with kalshi_call_endpoint. For a search/discovery tool with 3 optional parameters, this is complete enough, though it could mention default limit behavior (handled by schema) or pagination.

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 67%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides for 'search' and 'toolset', and it does not address 'limit' at all. The description's mention of 'keyword' aligns with the existing 'search' param description but adds no new semantics.

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's function: 'Search every Kalshi API endpoint, including ones not currently loaded as their own tool.' It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('every Kalshi API endpoint'), and differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly covering endpoints that lack dedicated tools, with a clear relationship to kalshi_call_endpoint.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to find an endpoint by keyword, then call it with kalshi_call_endpoint.' This indicates when to use the tool (discovery) and names a companion tool for the follow-up. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or enumerate alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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