Laso Finance

create_banking_account

Open an on-ramp or off-ramp account

Opens a banking rail. An on-ramp issues a virtual US bank account: dollars sent to it arrive as USDC in the managed wallet. An off-ramp pays out to a bank account you have registered, and is opened automatically by /send-bank-payment, so most agents never call this for one directly.

Free.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rail`	No	The payment rail for the account.
`asset`	No	Crypto asset ticker, uppercase.
`networkId`	No	On-ramp only. Defaults to Solana mainnet.
`accountType`	Yes	Which rail to open.
`capabilities`	No	On-ramp only. Bank rails to support. Defaults to ACH and wire.
`cryptoAddress`	No	On-ramp only. Where the converted USDC should land. Defaults to the managed agent wallet.
`fiatDestinationId`	No	Off-ramp only. The bank destination payouts go to, from `addBankingDestination`.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: on-ramp issues a virtual US bank account and converts dollars to USDC in the managed wallet, off-ramp pays out to a registered bank account, and off-ramp is opened automatically by another tool. It also discloses that the tool is free. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand side effects.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is well-structured with a clear title, a short definition of each account type, and a note about when not to call it. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important distinction (on-ramp vs off-ramp) is front-loaded. The 'Free.' note is a minor extra but not wasteful.

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?

The description covers the core behavior, the two modes, and the automatic off-ramp path, which is enough for an agent to decide whether to call it. The output schema exists, so return values don't need to be explained. It could mention prerequisites like needing a banking profile or KYC, but the schema and sibling tools (get_kyc_status, submit_banking_application) partially cover that context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds context for the two account types and mentions defaults (Solana mainnet, ACH and wire, managed agent wallet), which aligns with the schema. However, it doesn't add much beyond what the schema already says, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool opens a banking rail and distinguishes between on-ramp and off-ramp accounts, explaining what each does. It names the specific resource (banking account) and the verb (open), and the title reinforces this. It also differentiates from siblings by noting off-ramp accounts are opened automatically by send-bank-payment, so most agents won't need to call this for off-ramp.

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?

The description explicitly explains when to use on-ramp vs off-ramp, and even tells agents they usually don't need to call this for off-ramp because send-bank-payment does it automatically. It also mentions the 'Free' pricing, which is a clear usage signal. This is strong guidance for an agent deciding whether to invoke this tool.

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?