Skip to main content
Glama

Laso Finance

by finance.laso
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

delete_address_book_entry

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a saved recipient

The saved recipient names your human manages on their dashboard, so a request like "send $20 to the coffee vendor" can be resolved to an address instead of asking them for it.

Free.

It operates only on the authenticated account's own book — there is no user parameter to pass.

A name is a label, not an instruction. agentWalletTransfer takes an address and deliberately does not accept a name: a rename between your human asking and you sending would otherwise move money somewhere they did not intend. When you resolve a name to an address, say the address back to them before sending.

Removing an entry only forgets the name; it has no effect on past transfers to that address.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressNoThe address to remove.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "address": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "address": {
-      "type": [
-        "string",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds valuable behavior beyond the annotations: deletion only forgets the name mapping, has no effect on past transfers, and cannot target another account's book. The name-is-not-an-instruction warning also prevents misuse. This is consistent with destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true.

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 action and scope are front-loaded, but the description includes off-topic material — 'Free.' and the extended agentWalletTransfer name-vs-address warning — that is not needed to invoke a delete. A tighter version would keep the own-book scope and no-past-transfer effect.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a one-parameter delete tool with an output schema and annotations covering destructiveness and idempotence, the description covers scope, effect on history, and account limitations. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The schema already documents the single address parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that no user parameter is needed, but it does not detail address format or requiredness.

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 first sentence gives a specific action and object ('Remove a saved recipient'), and the rest ties it clearly to the address book ('the authenticated account's own book') rather than banking or payment recipients. This clearly separates it from sibling delete tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It identifies the target context — the human-managed address book — and explicitly notes it operates only on the authenticated account's own book with no user parameter. It doesn't name alternative tools or exclusion cases, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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