Pit Officer

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

delete_group

Delete an account group while preserving members' trading and compliance history; deletion is refused if the group is blocked, P&L-bound, rate-limited, or would change a protected member's currency.

Instructions

Delete an account group. Its member accounts leave the group and keep their trading and compliance history. The delete is refused with loosening_refused, even with force, when the group is blocked, when it carries a group-scoped Spot Funds P&L bound, or while any rate-limit barrier is configured; it is refused with currency_change_blocked, even with force, when leaving would change the effective currency of a member carrying protected state. The group's trading access grants are deleted with it; its former members keep only their own. The default group cannot be deleted. Mutates Officer control-plane config; protected and disabled by default.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`force`	No	Does not change whether the delete succeeds: a group carrying a group-scoped Spot Funds P&L bound, the only rows force would delete with it, is refused with loosening_refused with or without force, and a delete that would change the effective currency of a member carrying protected state is refused even with force
`group`	Yes	Group code

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`force`	No	Does not change whether the delete succeeds: a group carrying a group-scoped Spot Funds P&L bound, the only rows force would delete with it, is refused with loosening_refused with or without force, and a delete that would change the effective currency of a member carrying protected state is refused even with force
`group`	Yes	Group code

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that member accounts retain trading/compliance history, that trading access grants are deleted while members keep their own, the precise refusal semantics of force, and that the operation mutates Officer control-plane config and is protected/disabled by default. This is unusually rich for a destructive tool.

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 core action and keeps each sentence earning its place despite being dense. The force behavior is repeated between the body and the schema, a minor redundancy, but the paragraph remains coherent and purposeful.

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 destructive, unannotated operation the description covers consequences, refusal paths with error codes, scope of deleted grants, and default protection. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained; nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters and the nuanced force semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The description largely restates the force behavior rather than adding parameter meaning beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Delete an account group') immediately, and the surrounding sentences distinguish it from siblings like update_group, create_group, and list_groups by scoping it to destructive removal. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Provides strong when-not guidance: default group cannot be deleted, refusal conditions for blocked groups, P&L bounds, rate-limit barriers, and protected-state currency changes, each with named error codes. It lacks an explicit alternative pointer (e.g. 'use update_group to rename'), so it stops short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server