revoke_delegation
Revoke a delegation. The reply includes calldata the owner can send on-chain for hard finality. Auth required.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | delegation id (uuid) |
Cofferline
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a key behavioral aspect: the reply includes calldata for on-chain hard finality, implying the tool itself does not finalize on-chain. It also mentions 'Auth required.' However, it does not describe side effects on the delegation record or any state changes beyond the calldata, so transparency is partial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, consisting of two short sentences with no redundant or vague wording. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose and a key behavioral note.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but the description lacks context about its relationship to sibling delegation tools, potential side effects, or error conditions. It does not explain how it differs from 'cancel' or 'confirm' beyond the name, and the output schema is absent but the calldata mention is minimal. Overall, incomplete for full contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter 'id' is only described as 'delegation id (uuid)', which merely repeats the schema's type and format. No additional meaning, constraints, or context is provided, so the description adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The verb 'Revoke' clearly indicates the action, and the resource 'delegation' is specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'confirm_delegation' or 'renew_delegation' by the action. The added detail about calldata for hard finality enhances clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the action name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
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.
Naming Consistency5/5
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.
Tool Count2/5
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.
Completeness4/5
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.