Retrieve current open orders on Kalshi prediction markets using your API key to review and manage resting positions.
Kalshi resting orders (needs the operator's API key).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.18.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "kalshi_open_ordersOutput",
- "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 a useful requirement (operator's API key) that is not in the annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavior such as pagination, return format, or error conditions, so it adds minimal context beyond the 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 extremely short (a single phrase) and could be considered concise, but it is under-specified. It lacks a clear subject-verb structure and does not front-load key information. It reads more like a label than a functional description, so it is not effectively structured.
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 read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description should at least clarify what the tool returns and how the limit works. It does neither, only stating the resource and a requirement. The description is incomplete for an agent to correctly understand the tool's behavior.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. With no parameter semantics provided, an agent has no guidance on what limit controls (e.g., number of orders returned, pagination size). The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 'Kalshi resting orders' is a noun phrase without a verb, so it does not explicitly state whether the tool lists, retrieves, or manages resting orders. It also fails to distinguish this from sibling tools like kalshi_positions or open_orders, which likely have similar purposes. The only action implied is 'get', but it is not stated.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions the API key requirement, which is a prerequisite, not a usage condition. There is no comparison to siblings or indication of specific scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.