kalshi_place_order

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical 'DRY-RUN by default' behavior, preventing accidental real orders, and reveals internal translation to the YES-book bid/ask. However, it does not mention authentication, error handling, or what happens when dry-run is disabled, leaving some gaps.

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 four short, focused sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose first and adds critical behavioral details concisely. Every sentence contributes value with zero fluff.

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 6-parameter tool with 5 required fields, the description lacks essential information on ticker (market identifier format) and count (number of contracts). While dry-run is mentioned, its exact output (simulated order?) is not clarified. An agent cannot reliably construct a correct call without guessing these semantics.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains outcome (yes/no), action (buy/sell), and price as probability in (0,1), which is essential. But it omits ticker, count, and time_in_force, leaving their meaning and format ambiguous. Partial compensation only.

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 'Place a Kalshi limit order', specifying the verb and resource. It further clarifies the natural-language semantics for outcome and action, distinguishing it from the generic sibling 'place_order' by the Kalshi-specific and translation detail. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'place_order'. The description implies it is for Kalshi orders but does not state exclusions or offer a comparison to the generic 'place_order' sibling. An agent must infer the selection criteria without direct support.

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