Fetch the operator's current Kalshi positions using their API key. Returns open positions to review exposure and trading activity.
Kalshi positions (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_positionsOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that it needs the operator's API key, which is a useful auth context but minimal. It doesn't disclose pagination, rate limits, or what data is returned, so it adds little beyond 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 short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits critical information and does not front-load any useful semantic content. Conciseness is only a virtue when the content is sufficient.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (many siblings, no output schema, one undocumented parameter), the description is drastically incomplete. It doesn't state what the return value is, how results are ordered or filtered, or when to prefer this tool over alternatives. An agent cannot reliably invoke it correctly.
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 one optional parameter 'limit' with default 50, but schema description coverage is 0% and the description gives no explanation of what 'limit' controls (e.g., number of positions returned). The agent cannot infer the parameter's meaning or constraints from either source.
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 is a noun phrase 'Kalshi positions' with no verb, essentially restating the tool name. It doesn't specify what the tool does (e.g., list, retrieve, fetch) and doesn't distinguish it from numerous siblings like my_positions, get_positions, or paper_positions. The added phrase about needing the API key is a prerequisite, not a purpose.
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 the many similar position-related tools (my_positions, get_positions, paper_positions). It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites beyond the API key, or exclusions. The agent is left to guess which of the ~50 siblings is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.