kalshi_paper_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses that no real order/money is involved, that prices/fills track the live exchange, that market orders walk the book and incur taker fees, that limit orders can rest and fill later, and that portfolios are created with a configurable starting balance. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure.

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 moderately long but every sentence earns its place: it explains the simulated nature, market/limit behavior, fees, portfolio lifecycle, and references reset. It is well-structured, front-loaded with the key point, and free of fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers all critical user-facing aspects: how orders execute, fees, fill behavior, settlement basis, portfolio creation, and side/price semantics. It gives a complete mental model for using the tool correctly, which is especially valuable given the 8 parameters and 3 required fields.

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%, so description bonus is limited. Still, the description adds meaning beyond the schema for several parameters: explains side semantics (buying NO equals selling YES), describes market vs. limit order execution tied to the 'type' parameter, clarifies that limit_price is required for limit orders, and explains portfolio creation with starting_balance_usd. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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: 'Place a simulated order against the live Kalshi book.' It explicitly distinguishes from real trading with 'Nothing here reaches Kalshi: no real order is placed and no real money moves.' It also differentiates from sibling paper tools (kalshi_paper_cancel, kalshi_paper_reset) by focusing on placing orders.

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 clearly implies usage for simulated trading without risking real funds, and explicitly references kalshi_paper_reset for portfolio creation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., kalshi_create_order_v2) or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls just short of explicit exclusions.

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