kalshi_fee_calculator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the fee rule (CFTC Rule 40.2) and the closed-form quadratic breakeven method, but it does not state whether the tool is purely computational, what assumptions apply, or how errors or edge cases are handled.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses. It combines two related capabilities efficiently and avoids repetition of schema details.

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 five-parameter calculator with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the broad purpose but not the shape or meaning of the returned results. The rich schema compensates for parameter documentation, but the description still leaves behavioral and output expectations partially inferred.

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 all five parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds context about Kalshi contracts and arbitrage pairs but does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource: calculating Kalshi exchange taker fees under CFTC Rule 40.2, plus solving breakeven prices for cross-venue arbitrage. This is clear enough to distinguish from an orderbook or market-search sibling, but it does not explicitly name or contrast against any sibling tool.

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 the calculator is for fee and breakeven calculations, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent must infer the context from the functionality alone.

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