kalshi_paper_reset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well by explicitly stating that positions, orders, and history are discarded, and that it wipes back to a fresh cash balance. This discloses the destructive nature beyond what the schema implies.

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 concise sentences, with the main action and key effects front-loaded. Every word earns its place and no unnecessary detail is included.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, effects, and a usage example. It doesn't mention the delete option, but the schema already covers it, so completeness is adequate.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a minor hint via the example 'paper trade $50' (starting balance), but does not elaborate on the delete or portfolio parameters beyond what the schema already says.

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 creates or wipes a simulated portfolio, with specific effects (discarding positions, orders, history). It distinguishes itself from sibling paper tools like paper_order and paper_portfolio by focusing on reset/creation.

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 a clear use case: 'Use this to start a new experiment, for example "paper trade $50".' This gives context for when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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