claim_external_depositClaim a completed external Base Sepolia USDC transfer for an owned wallet. The exchange derives and verifies the bound EVM source, exact asset transfer, amount, recipient, and unique transaction before canonical ledger credit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| walletId | Yes | ||
| amountMinor | Yes | ||
| idempotencyKey | Yes | ||
| transactionHash | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already show this is mutating (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the exchange derives/verifies the EVM source, asset, amount, recipient, and unique transaction before canonical ledger credit. It does not cover idempotency/duplicate behavior, but it goes beyond the annotations meaningfully.
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?
Two sentences with no filler; the first states the action and resource directly, and the second adds relevant verification/credit detail. It is slightly dense but well-structured and front-loaded.
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?
The core side effect ('canonical ledger credit') and prerequisite ('completed transfer', 'owned wallet') are clear. But with four required parameters, no output schema, and no explicit return-value or idempotency semantics, the description is only minimally complete for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the claim.
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 0%, so the description needed to explain the parameters, but it only alludes to 'amount' and 'unique transaction'. walletId, transactionHash, amountMinor, and idempotencyKey are never explicitly mapped. The claim that the exchange 'derives' amount and recipient also creates potential confusion with the required amountMinor parameter.
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 names a specific action ('Claim') and a specific resource ('completed external Base Sepolia USDC transfer for an owned wallet'), and further clarifies what the exchange verifies before crediting. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling funding-instruction or status tools.
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 phrase 'completed external ... transfer for an owned wallet' gives a clear prerequisite and context for when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_external_funding_instructions or get_testnet_funding_status, leaving routing partly to inference.
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.
The set has multiple near-synonymous read and recovery surfaces, e.g. get_commerce_purchase_status vs get_purchase_recovery_status vs recover_authorized_purchase vs recover_commerce_purchase, and discover_assurance_services vs discover_commerce_index vs get_discovery_manifest vs search_verified_offers. Long descriptions are required to tell them apart, so misselection is likely.
All names follow a readable snake_case verb_noun pattern, with get_, request_, create_, verify_, and recover_ prefixes used consistently. The main deviation is read operations split across get_/discover_/inspect_/search_/list_, which is still understandable but not perfectly uniform.
At 50 tools this is in the extreme-mismatch band for an MCP server. Even with a broad payment/commerce/discovery domain, dozens of get/status/recovery tools could be consolidated or parameterized.
The toolset covers the major lifecycles: registration, wallet, funding, payment, commerce offer/purchase/fulfillment/refund, mandates, and verification. Minor gaps such as no service unregister/update, no payment-request cancellation, and no wallet deletion are workable but not fatal.