Check your Kalshi trading account balance using your operator API key to monitor available funds for market orders.
Kalshi account balance (needs the operator's API key).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.18.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "kalshi_balanceOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the API key requirement, which is useful operational context beyond the structured data. It does not describe return format or units, but for a simple zero-parameter read this is a minor gap.
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?
A single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the resource being accessed and immediately states the key requirement. Every word earns its place.
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 zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description is nearly sufficient. It states the resource and the authentication requirement, while annotations cover the safety profile. The exact meaning of 'balance' (e.g., cash vs. available equity) is left open, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.
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 the schema carries no burden and the description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline for a parameter-less tool is 4, and there is nothing to deduct.
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 identifies the resource (Kalshi account balance) and the implied operation is retrieval. It lacks a specific verb like 'get' or 'fetch', but the noun phrase is unambiguous and not a tautology. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling 'my_balance', which could be confused with this tool.
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 gives a clear prerequisite ('needs the operator's API key'), implying it should be used when the operator's credentials are available. It does not mention any alternative tools or state when not to use it, so guidance is only implied. This is adequate but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.