kalshi_orderbook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Fetches live' implies a read-only, real-time operation and it lists the returned metrics, but it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness guarantees, or failure behavior.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. Every phrase contributes to identifying the resource, the returned data, and the contract domain.

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?

The description covers the main output components and contract universe, which helps since there is no output schema. However, it leaves gaps around output structure, interpretation of OBI, and when this tool is preferred over siblings.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description mentions depth and contract types but adds no parameter-level semantics 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 uses a specific verb, 'Fetches', and names the exact resource and returned metrics: Level 2 orderbook depth, bid/ask spread, top-5 depth, and OBI. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as kalshi_market_search.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kalshi_market_search or kalshi_cross_spread. Usage is only implied by the purpose statement, and there are no exclusions or prerequisite conditions.

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