Skip to main content
Glama

Laso Finance

by finance.laso
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

list_address_book

List saved recipients

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.

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": {
-    "entries": {
-      "items": {
-        "properties": {
-          "address": {
-            "description": "The recipient's Solana address. This is the entry's key.",
-            "type": [
-              "string",
-              "null"
-            ]
-          },
-          "last_used_at": {
-            "description": "When a transfer last went to this address, in milliseconds since epoch. Absent if never sent to.",
-            "type": [
-              "number",
-              "null"
-            ]
-          },
-          "name": {
-            "description": "The name your human gave this recipient.",
-            "type": [
-              "string",
-              "null"
-            ]
-          },
-          "saved_at": {
-            "description": "When the entry was last saved or renamed, in milliseconds since epoch.",
-            "type": [
-              "number",
-              "null"
-            ]
-          },
-          "send_count": {
-            "description": "How many transfers have gone to this address.",
-            "type": [
-              "number",
-              "null"
-            ]
-          }
-        },
-        "type": [
-          "object",
-          "null"
-        ]
-      },
-      "type": [
-        "array",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does substantial work: it says the call is free, scoped to the authenticated account, has no user parameter, and warns that names are labels to be confirmed against addresses. It stops short of explicitly stating read-only/no side effects or describing returned fields, but 'List' plus the warning makes the core behavior clear.

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 first line immediately states the action, and the following sentences each add selection or safety value. It is longer than a minimal stub but not padded; the bold label warning is substantively important.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the description provides the pricing, scope, and name-resolution purpose an agent needs. It doesn't spell out the exact response shape or read-only guarantee, but enough context is present to call it correctly.

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?

The only parameter, auth_token, is already fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is met. The description adds meaning by explicitly telling agents there is no user parameter to pass, preventing a likely mis-invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with 'List saved recipients,' a specific verb and resource, and explains the address-book purpose concisely. The title and references to the human-managed dashboard distinguish it from banking/payment recipient tools, though it doesn't name any sibling explicitly.

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?

Describes an explicit use case: resolving a human's saved label like 'coffee vendor' to an address. Scope is clearly bounded to the authenticated account's own book, and the note that agentWalletTransfer takes an address rather than a name helps the agent choose/sequence the tool. It doesn't mention when to use sibling list tools for bank/payment recipients.

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