Laso Finance

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

Name	Required	Description
`nickname`	No	An optional label. The only field editable later, via `updateBankingDestination`.
`destination`	Yes	The destination. For a US bank account: `destination_type: "fiat_us"` plus `aba_routing_number`, `account_number`, `account_type`, `account_holder_name` (22 characters max, the ACH limit), and `bank_name`. Also supports `fiat_iban` and `crypto`.
`recipientId`	Yes	The recipient from `createBankingRecipient`.
`recipientAddress`	No	Sets 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.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 4, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / destination / description

Previous value: -"The 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`."New value: +"The destination. For a US bank account: `destination_type: \"fiat_us\"` plus `aba_routing_number`, `account_number`, `account_type`, `account_holder_name` (22 characters max, the ACH limit), and `bank_name`. Also supports `fiat_iban` and `crypto`."

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 26, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / auth_token

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Laso credential. Only if the MCP connection has no Authorization header.",
-  "type": "string"
-}

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedSep 26, 2026
- changedOutput schema / (root)
```
Previous value: -{
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
```
First observedSep 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds cost transparency ('Free') and the return-value contract (`destination_id`), but it does not address the non-idempotency implication — whether calling twice attaches two duplicate destinations — which is the main behavioral risk an agent needs to know.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded, with the core action first and the return value second. The initial line largely restates the title, and the trailing 'Free.' is clipped to the point of ambiguity, but nothing is genuinely wasted.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, and the description still names the key returned identifier, while the 100%-covered input schema documents the nested destination variants and optional address workaround. The only real gap is guidance on duplicate-idempotency behavior for a non-idempotent mutation.

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 all four parameters, including the nested `destination` shape and the `recipientAddress` dead-end warning, are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Attach bank details to a recipient', 'Attaches a bank account or crypto address to a recipient') and states the concrete output, the `destination_id`. It is clearly distinguishable from `create_banking_recipient` and `update_banking_destination` by implication, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied through the workflow reference: the returned `destination_id` is what `/send-bank-payment` pays out to, so an agent can infer this is the prerequisite step before sending a bank payment. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus `update_banking_destination` or how to handle an already-existing destination.

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

All Laso Finance 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?