Skip to main content
Glama

Laso Finance

by finance.laso
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

add_banking_destination

Attach bank details to a recipient

Attaches a bank account or crypto address to a recipient and returns the destination_id that /send-bank-payment pays out to.

Free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nicknameNoAn optional label. The only field editable later, via `updateBankingDestination`.
auth_tokenNoLaso credential. Only if the MCP connection has no Authorization header.
destinationYesThe destination. For a US bank account: `destination_type: "fiat_us"` plus `aba_routing_number`, `account_number`, `account_type`, `account_holder_name`, and `bank_name`. Also supports `fiat_iban` and `crypto`.
recipientIdYesThe recipient from `createBankingRecipient`.
recipientAddressNoSets the recipient's postal address before attaching the destination. Needed when the recipient was created name-only: bank destinations are rejected without one, so supplying it here avoids a dead end.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful facts: the operation attaches an account/address, returns a destination ID, and is free. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether calling it repeatedly creates multiple destinations, whether it replaces existing ones, or what auth setup is required.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The text is short and front-loaded, but the first sentence 'Attach bank details to a recipient' is redundant with the second sentence. 'Free.' is informative but abrupt; a single tighter statement would be better.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a nested five-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the key return value but omits operational context such as needing an existing recipient and the `recipientAddress` caveat for name-only recipients. The schema fills some of these gaps, making the definition adequate but not complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds only high-level context about the destination type and the returned ID's role; it does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 description states a concrete action and resource: it attaches a bank account or crypto address to a recipient. It also names the meaningful output (`destination_id`) and the downstream consumer (`/send-bank-payment`), which makes the tool's role distinct from siblings like `update_banking_destination` or `create_banking_recipient`.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the main usage context: call this before `/send-bank-payment` because the returned `destination_id` is what that payment tool pays out to. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives such as `update_banking_destination`, so the guidance remains inferential.

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

All Laso Finance toolsInspect
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