kalshi_cross_spread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context by mentioning live data and exact CFTC fee and Polygon gas deductions, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or whether any orders can be placed.

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 dense sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the primary purpose and then adding the fee/gas refinement. Every clause contributes to distinguishing the tool's output.

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?

With no output schema, the description still conveys the conceptual return values (spreads, divergences, arbitrage opportunities) and notes fee/gas deductions. It is nearly complete for selection and invocation, though it could say more about result shape or matching methodology.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as how ticker matching works or how category filtering interacts with min_net_roi_pct.

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 uses the specific verb 'Queries' and names the exact resource: live cross-venue spreads, pricing divergences, and dual-leg arbitrage opportunities between Kalshi and Polymarket contracts. Its cross-venue focus clearly distinguishes it from siblings like kalshi_orderbook and kalshi_fee_calculator.

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 implies this tool is for cross-venue arbitrage and spread analysis, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus related tools such as kalshi_fee_calculator or kalshi_orderbook. There are no exclusions or alternative-routing instructions, leaving usage selection largely inferential.

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