Skip to main content
Glama

Laso Finance

by finance.laso
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_card_deposit_address

Get the reloadable card deposit address

Returns the account holder's own USDC deposit address at the card issuer, and the balance currently on it. This is how an agent funds a reloadable card balance with crypto.

Funding is user-funded: the address belongs to the account holder, so USDC sent to it credits their balance and funds their cards. The issuer provisions the address on first read, so simply calling this creates it.

Base only. The address takes USDC on Base. USDC sent on another chain is unrecoverable. A Laso managed agent wallet holds USDC on Solana, so fund from a wallet that holds USDC on Base rather than transferring straight from a managed wallet.

Deposits usually confirm within a couple of minutes. Poll this endpoint until balance reflects the deposit, then call POST /create-reloadable-card.

The address is stable per holder, but read it through this endpoint rather than caching it: the issuer is the only authority on it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
auth_tokenNoLaso credential. Only if the MCP connection has no Authorization header.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "address": {
-      "description": "The holder's own USDC receiving address at the card issuer.",
-      "type": [
-        "string",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    },
-    "asset": {
-      "description": "The asset the address accepts. Always `USDC`.",
-      "type": [
-        "string",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    },
-    "balance": {
-      "description": "Dollars currently on the card balance, or `null` when the issuer cannot read it (which is not the same as zero).",
-      "type": [
-        "number",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    },
-    "network": {
-      "description": "The chain the address accepts. Always `base`.",
-      "type": [
-        "string",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    },
-    "note": {
-      "description": "Chain warning and the next step.",
-      "type": [
-        "string",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even though no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses the key side effect: simply calling this creates the address at the issuer. It also explains user-funded semantics, the Base-only chain constraint with irreversible loss risk, typical confirmation timing, and that the stable address should only be considered authoritative via this endpoint.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: purpose, funding flow, chain warning, polling behavior, and caching guidance. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then provides essential operational detail in clearly separated paragraphs.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what will be returned (address and balance), the important side effect of creation, chain constraints, expected timing, next step, and why the agent should call this endpoint rather than caching the value.

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 covers the only parameter, auth_token, with a clear description and 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The tool description does not add much about the parameter itself, but none is needed because the schema already explains when auth_token is required.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it gets the holder's USDC deposit address at the card issuer and the current balance. It also clearly positions this as the way an agent funds a reloadable card with crypto, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_card or get_card_data.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this: this is how an agent funds a reloadable card balance. It gives critical when-not guidance: USDC sent on another chain is unrecoverable, and agents should not transfer directly from a managed Solana wallet. It also advises polling until balance updates and then calling POST /create-reloadable-card, plus warns against caching the address.

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