Renew an active delegation: same scope, fresh expiry, no authority gap. Returns a NEW digest to sign and confirm exactly like prepare_delegation. Auth required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | delegation id (uuid) | |
| valid_until | No | optional new expiry, unix seconds; defaults to the original duration |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that auth is required and that the tool returns a new digest for signing, and it clarifies the renewal semantics. However, it does not state side effects, what happens to existing pending confirmations, or behavior on invalid/inactive delegation IDs.
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 concise sentences with no wasted words. Key facts are front-loaded: the action, scope, expiry, authority gap, and follow-up signing flow.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, required auth, and next-step flow. It could mention error/precondition details, but it is reasonably complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema; it mentions the new expiry concept implicitly but the schema already documents 'valid_until' and its default behavior.
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's action: 'Renew an active delegation' with specific semantics ('same scope, fresh expiry, no authority gap'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like prepare_delegation and revoke_delegation by focusing on renewal of an existing active delegation.
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 practical usage context: it applies to an 'active delegation', requires auth, and instructs the agent to follow the same confirm flow as prepare_delegation. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name direct alternatives, but the context is clear enough.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. Within the prediction market domain, prepare vs create vs submit are clearly differentiated by signing model (client-signed vs server-signed). Even similar-sounding tools like check_spend and check_pm_order are unambiguously scoped to general spending vs PM orders, and their descriptions reinforce the boundary.
All 47 tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase snake_case. Verbs like get, list, create, cancel, revoke, prepare, submit, set, remove, and poll are used uniformly. There is no mixing of styles or vague verbs like 'process' or 'run', making the surface highly predictable.
47 tools is significantly above the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. While the server covers a broad and complex domain (prediction markets, policy, delegations), the sheer count makes the surface heavy and potentially overwhelming. Some consolidation (e.g., merging related PM order operations) could reduce cognitive load without sacrificing functionality.
The tool set provides comprehensive lifecycle coverage across all major subdomains: authentication, policy versioning, delegation CRUD (prepare/confirm/list/get/revoke/renew), intent management, PM order flow (create/cancel/list/prepare/submit/check), credential management (store/list/revoke), balance and top-up operations, and account-level actions (export, offboard, panic). Minor omissions exist (e.g., no dedicated tool to view a single credential in detail or update an intent), but agents can work around these with existing tools.