Cancel an open Kalshi order by its order ID to remove it from the market before it fills.
Cancel a Kalshi order by id (respects dry-run).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.18.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "kalshi_cancel_orderOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the 'respects dry-run' behavior, which is not present in the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). This is valuable context beyond the structured data. No contradiction with annotations.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the action and key behavior efficiently.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the action and a key behavioral nuance (dry-run), though it omits potential error scenarios or success outcomes, which are not critical for this 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 description mentions 'by id' which maps to the order_id parameter, but does not elaborate on format or semantics. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates but leaves room for clarification about what the id refers to.
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 action ('Cancel'), the resource ('Kalshi order'), and the identifier ('by id'). It differentiates from the generic 'cancel_order' sibling by explicitly naming Kalshi, and from 'cancel_all_orders' by specifying a single order.
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?
It clearly implies when to use it (to cancel a specific Kalshi order) and implicitly distinguishes from cancel-all. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.