Advanced: Open Kalshi positions with live P&L. Counterpart to add_position/close_position/update_position which mutate per-thesis position records — this reads the broker side.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | Yes | SimpleFunctions API key. Requires Kalshi credentials configured via sf setup. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly states 'reads the broker side,' disclosing that this is a read-only operation. It also adds context about 'live P&L' and contrasts with per-thesis records. It does not detail rate limits, error behavior, or output structure, but the read-only nature is clearly transmitted.
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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose ('Advanced: Open Kalshi positions with live P&L') and then provides a clear distinction from sibling tools. Every word earns its place.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and relationship to siblings. However, given the presence of portfolio_positions_list in the sibling list, a brief clarification of how this differs from that tool would have made it fully complete. Still, the description is sufficiently clear for an agent to select it.
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 fully documents the single parameter 'apiKey' with its purpose and setup requirement. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 the tool reads open Kalshi positions with live P&L, using the verb 'reads' and specifying the resource as 'Kalshi positions' and 'broker side.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling mutation tools (add_position/close_position/update_position) by explicitly calling itself the read counterpart.
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 provides explicit context on when to use this tool versus the mutating position tools: 'Counterpart to add_position/close_position/update_position which mutate per-thesis position records — this reads the broker side.' However, it does not mention other potentially overlapping read tools like portfolio_positions_list, leaving a gap in alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple market query tools (scan_markets, screen_markets, get_market_detail, get_market_diff, get_market_history, inspect_ticker) and legislative tools (legislation, get_legislation, list_legislation, query_gov). Aliases like get_heartbeat_config/get_heartbeat_status and explore_public/explore_theses add further confusion. An agent would struggle to select the correct tool without deeply reading each description.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, update_), but there are notable deviations: 'legislation' lacks the 'get_' prefix, 'stt' and 'tts' are acronyms, 'monitor_the_situation' is a full phrase, and 'x_account/x_news/x_volume' use a non-standard prefix. The overall style is readable, but the mixed conventions reduce predictability.
108 tools is extreme for any server, even one covering prediction markets, trading, portfolio management, forum, skills, and speech. The massive surface area overwhelms agents and makes the server feel more like a platform than a coherent toolkit. This many tools inevitably leads to redundancy and maintenance burden.
The server covers an impressively broad domain: market data, thesis management, intents, strategies, positions, portfolio, forum, skills, legislative and economic queries, and audio/visual processing. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete for skills/theses, no update for some portfolio items) but core workflows are well-supported. Overall lifecycle coverage for most entities is strong.
