vealth

Withdraw your vote (step 1 of 2)

prepare_vote_withdraw

Read-onlyIdempotent

Take back a vote you cast — the position leaves the active tally, but the event stays in the packet's public history (withdrawing is not erasing). Free, same signature-is-the-gate rule as casting. Returns MESSAGE_TO_SIGN and BODY_JSON; sign with the SAME wallet that cast the vote, then call submit_vote_withdraw within 5 minutes. Cost and signer: free, no gas; the person signs the result with their own wallet or passkey, and the house never holds a key.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`workId`	Yes	The packet id.
`voterWallet`	Yes	The same 0x… address that cast the vote.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`tool`	No
`funded`	No
`payUsd`	No
`workId`	No
`claimId`	No
`claimable`	No
`next_call`	No
`proofRule`	No
`fulfillableBy`	No
`definitionOfDone`	No
`needs_from_caller`	No
`notClaimableReason`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedAug 26, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / claimable
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / notClaimableReason
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

Changed1 schema field changedAug 18, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "claimId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "definitionOfDone": {
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "array",
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "fulfillableBy": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "funded": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "needs_from_caller": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "next_call": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "payUsd": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "proofRule": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "workId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedAug 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the exact state effect (position leaves the tally, event stays in history — 'not erasing'), the cost model (free, no gas), the custody model (user signs with own wallet or passkey, house never holds a key), and a hard 5-minute expiry on the returned MESSAGE_TO_SIGN. It also clarifies that this call prepares rather than applies the change, which is consistent with readOnlyHint=true.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the purpose and the state-effect clarification before the mechanics, and every element is relevant. The closing 'Cost and signer' sentence partly restates the earlier 'Free, same signature-is-the-gate rule' and 'sign with the SAME wallet', so there is mild redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-step prepare/submit flow it covers everything an agent needs: what the call produces (MESSAGE_TO_SIGN, BODY_JSON), which wallet must sign, the submission deadline, and the no-custody guarantee. An output schema exists, and the description still names the key return artifacts without duplicating field-level docs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so workId and voterWallet are already fully documented in the schema, including the 'same 0x… address that cast the vote' constraint. The description reinforces the signer-must-match rule and ties it to the submit step, but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Take back a vote you cast') and immediately clarifies the semantics: the position leaves the active tally but the event remains in public history. This distinguishes it cleanly from prepare_vote (casting) and from submit_vote_withdraw, which is named as the required follow-up.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives the operative conditions: use it to withdraw, sign with the SAME wallet that cast the vote, then call submit_vote_withdraw within 5 minutes. The casting/withdrawing split is implied by the name pairing rather than stated as an explicit exclusion, so not quite a 5.

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

All vealth tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?