Transfer USDC out of your managed agent wallet to any Solana address. Use this to recover funds or move them to another wallet you control.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | Decimal USDC amount to send, as a string (e.g. 25.50). | |
| auth_token | No | Laso credential. Only if the MCP connection has no Authorization header. | |
| destination_address | Yes | Solana address to send the USDC to. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('transfer') but omits critical behavioral aspects such as irreversibility, balance requirements, fees, or any side effects. For a financial mutation tool, this is a significant gap—an agent cannot anticipate risks or preconditions.
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?
The description is two sentences with zero fluff. The primary action and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a clear purpose in the second. It is appropriately concise and easy to parse.
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?
Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description should compensate with cautionary notes (e.g., irreversible transfer, sufficient balance needed). It does not mention any errors, limits, or prerequisites. For a financial transfer tool, this is under-specified—an agent might not know to check balance or verify the destination before invoking.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters clearly. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond saying 'transfer USDC' (implicitly covering destination and amount). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Transfer'), a specific resource ('USDC out of your managed agent wallet'), and a target ('any Solana address'). It also adds a use case ('recover funds or move them to another wallet you control'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'withdraw' or 'send_payment' which deal with different contexts.
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 description gives a clear context for use: 'to recover funds or move them to another wallet you control.' It implies the tool is for agent wallet transfers only, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. However, the context is unambiguous enough that an agent could select it correctly.
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.