Skip to main content
Glama

Laso Finance

by finance.laso
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

agent_wallet_transfer

Destructive

Transfer USDC out of your managed agent wallet to any Solana address, or to any Base address by setting destination_network to base (bridged over CCTP, minimum 1 USDC, maximum your spend limit; the recipient receives the amount less a 0.01% bridge fee, usually within a minute). It draws on the whole balance: if the Solana side is short, the difference is pulled back from Base first (usually about 15 seconds). Use this to pay someone or to move funds to another wallet you control. This is the only way to move the agent wallet's USDC; withdraw draws on the separate Laso account balance instead.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amountYesDecimal USDC amount to send, as a string (e.g. 25.50).
destination_addressYesAddress to send the USDC to: a Solana address, or a 0x address when destination_network is base.
destination_networkNoChain the destination address is on (default solana). base delivers native USDC on Base.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / destination_address / description
      Previous value: -"Solana address to send the USDC to."New value: +"Address to send the USDC to: a Solana address, or a 0x address when destination_network is base."
    • addedInput schema / properties / destination_network
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Chain the destination address is on (default solana). base delivers native USDC on Base.",
+  "enum": [
+    "solana",
+    "base"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • 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"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: CCTP bridging, minimum 1 USDC, maximum bounded by the spend limit, a 0.01% bridge fee deducted from the recipient amount, ~1 minute settlement, and the ~15-second Base pullback funding behavior. This is exactly the behavioral disclosure a mutating, irreversible transfer needs.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries substantive information (fees, limits, timing, sibling disambiguation). The long parentheticals make it denser than ideal to scan, but nothing is filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers amount bounds, fee, timing, and the alternative tool. It omits any note on auth or balance prerequisites for the agent wallet itself, a minor gap for a destructive fund-moving operation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so semantics are already documented. The description nonetheless adds meaning the schema lacks: that destination_network=base triggers a cross-chain bridge with a 1 USDC floor and a fee, and that the recipient receives amount minus the fee. It does not clarify amount formatting beyond the schema's own example string.

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 (transfer), resource (USDC), and scope (out of the managed agent wallet) up front. It then explicitly differentiates from the closest sibling with 'This is the only way to move the agent wallet's USDC; withdraw draws on the separate Laso account balance instead,' so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives concrete when-to-use cases ('to pay someone or to move funds to another wallet you control') and an explicit when-not/alternative ('withdraw draws on the separate Laso account balance instead'). It also states the condition that selects the Base route via destination_network=base.

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