List positions currently redeemable for USDC, including winning resolved positions and mergeable YES/NO pairs, with IDs accepted by gasless tools.
What the operator can turn back into USDC now: redeemable (resolved, winning) positions and mergeable (hold both YES and NO) positions, with the ids the gasless tools take. Uses the configured wallet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.18.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: it tells the agent that the configured wallet is used, that the positions are resolved/winning, and that the returned IDs are compatible with the gasless tools. 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 concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then adds defining detail. It contains no filler, though the 'What ... now:' construction is slightly awkward and could be phrased more directly.
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 listing tool with rich annotations, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, defines redeemable and mergeable, identifies the wallet scope, and notes the gasless-tool ID compatibility. However, it does not describe the return shape or the effect of the limit parameter, which would make it fully self-contained.
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%, and the description does not mention the single limit parameter at all. The parameter is optional and has a default, so the bare name 'limit' carries some meaning, but the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage as required.
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 what the operator can do: turn redeemable and mergeable positions back into USDC, and that the tool returns the IDs needed for gasless operations. It is specific enough to distinguish this listing tool from generic position tools like kalshi_positions or my_positions, and from the action tools redeem_positions and merge_positions.
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 gives clear context: use this to find positions that are ready for redemption or merging, and the IDs are meant for the gasless tools. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it, but the specialized scope is implied well enough for an agent to route correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.