kalshi_update_subaccount_netting

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds the specific endpoint (PUT /portfolio/subaccounts/netting) and the subaccount number range, but does not disclose additional behaviors such as response format, permissions, or side effects. This aligns with the annotated safety profile and adds limited extra context.

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 relatively concise at three sentences, but the first phrase 'Update Subaccount Netting' is redundant with the tool name and the following sentence. The inclusion of the API endpoint is useful and the structure is front-loaded with the primary action. Minor redundancy prevents a perfect score.

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 two-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the action, the resource, the subaccount numbering, and the endpoint. However, with no output schema, it does not explain what the response will contain (e.g., success message or updated setting). Despite this, the overall context is sufficient for a basic update operation.

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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (subaccount_number and enabled) with 100% coverage. The description repeats the subaccount numbering guidance ('Use 0 for the primary account, or 1-63') without adding new meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema covers everything, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Updates the netting enabled setting for a specific subaccount.' It identifies the specific resource (netting setting) and action (update), and distinguishes itself from siblings like kalshi_get_subaccount_netting by being the mutation counterpart.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to modify netting settings for a subaccount. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools and the verb 'updates' imply its distinct role. It also gives practical guidance on subaccount numbering (0 for primary, 1-63 for subaccounts).

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