kalshi_positions

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

Since no annotations are given, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the operator's API key is needed, which is a prerequisite, but does not state what the tool actually does (e.g., returns positions), whether it's read-only, or any side effects. This is insufficient.

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, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks essential information and does not earn its place by adding value; it reads more like a placeholder than a complete definition.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still fails to clarify the tool's purpose and parameters. An agent cannot determine what action to expect or how to use the limit parameter, making the description incomplete for effective use.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the limit parameter, but it does not. The sole parameter is left undocumented, providing no additional meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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 positions' is ambiguous; it doesn't specify an action verb like 'list' or 'get' and does not differentiate from sibling tools such as get_positions. It merely names the resource without stating what is done with it.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_positions or other kalshi_* tools. The description does not mention any context, preconditions, or exclusions.

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