kalshi_server_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does disclose that the tool reports configuration details and implies read-only behavior via 'Report,' but it does not explicitly state safety, side effects, or what happens if the server is unreachable. The information provided is useful but not deeply transparent.

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 main purpose, and both sentences earn their place—one for scope, one for usage guidance. No fluff or redundancy.

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 low-complexity, zero-parameter diagnostic tool, the description covers what it reports and when to use it. It does not describe the exact output structure, but since there is no output schema, the enumerated report categories provide sufficient context. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and output; the baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool applies.

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 a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('how this server is configured'), then enumerates exactly what aspects are covered: environment, API key, toolsets, and limits. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on market data or order operations.

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 explicitly says 'Check this first if a call fails unexpectedly,' providing a clear when-to-use instruction as a diagnostic first step. It does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is strong enough for a clear recommendation.

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