Skip to main content
Glama

Laso Finance

by finance.laso
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

push_to_card

Send money to a debit card (USD, EUR, GBP)

Pay USDC to initiate a push-to-card transfer. Specify the face value in the target currency (USD, EUR, or GBP); Laso computes the USDC cost using the current exchange rate plus a 4.8% fee (minimum fee of $1.50/€1.50/£1.50 in the transfer currency), and that becomes the x402 price. Returns a redemption_url that must be opened to complete the transfer. The form requires sender name, debit card number, and cardholder name.

Supported currencies:

  • USD — U.S. debit cards (U.S. bank accounts only)

  • EUR — Eurozone debit cards

  • GBP — U.K. debit cards

Laso cannot perform the transfer directly — the redemption URL must be visited and the debit card details entered manually (by the agent or a human).

Fee: 4.8%, with a minimum of 1.50 in the transfer currency (included in the USDC price, computed from the requested face value).

PAID ROUTE (11.50-10000 USD): the x402 USDC price is paid automatically from your managed agent wallet. Make sure the wallet exists and is funded first (get_agent_wallet).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amountYesFace value to send to the debit card, denominated in the chosen `currency` (min 10, max 9,541.98). The x402 payment price is this face value converted to USD plus a 4.8% fee (minimum fee of 1.50 in the chosen currency).
currencyNoTarget currency for the debit card transfer. Defaults to `USD`.USD
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": {
-    "amount": {
-      "description": "The face value sent to the debit card, in the requested `currency`",
-      "type": [
-        "number",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    },
-    "auth": {
-      "properties": {
-        "expires_in": {
-          "description": "Token lifetime in seconds",
-          "type": [
-            "string",
-            "null"
-          ]
-        },
-        "id_token": {
-          "description": "ID token — use as Bearer token for Laso Finance APIs",
-          "type": [
-            "string",
-            "null"
-          ]
-        },
-        "refresh_token": {
-          "description": "Use with POST /auth (grant_type=refresh_token) to get a new id_token when it expires",
-          "type": [
-            "string",
-            "null"
-          ]
-        }
-      },
-      "type": [
-        "object",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    },
-    "callable_base_url": {
-      "type": [
-        "string",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    },
-    "currency": {
-      "description": "The target currency of the debit card transfer One of: USD, EUR, GBP.",
-      "type": [
-        "string",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    },
-    "message": {
-      "type": [
-        "string",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    },
-    "note": {
-      "description": "Important information about the currency's regional restriction and required form fields",
-      "type": [
-        "string",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    },
-    "redemption_url": {
-      "description": "URL to open and complete the push-to-card transfer. The form requires: sender name, debit card number, and cardholder name.",
-      "type": [
-        "string",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    },
-    "success": {
-      "type": [
-        "boolean",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    },
-    "user_id": {
-      "description": "The user's ID (lowercase wallet address)",
-      "type": [
-        "string",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the transfer is not automatic, requires opening a redemption_url and manually entering card details, includes a 4.8% fee with minimum, and requires a funded managed wallet for the paid route. This is substantial behavioral disclosure, though it doesn't mention error handling or rate limits.

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 description is detailed and well-structured with headings for currencies and fees, and it front-loads the primary action. It is somewhat long but each section adds necessary context for a complex operation.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the process, fee, currencies, manual step, and wallet requirement. However, there is an inconsistency between the stated paid route range (11.50-10000 USD) and the schema's max of 9541.98, and the minimum of 10 vs 11.50. This could confuse an agent. Also, it does not describe the redemption_url format or error scenarios.

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 provides detailed descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description repeats the face value and fee calculation but does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema states. It does clarify the auth_token condition, but that is also in the schema.

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 sends money to a debit card in USD, EUR, or GBP, and explains the mechanism. It distinguishes itself from sibling payment tools by focusing on push-to-card transfers, though it doesn't name a specific alternative.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies this is for sending to debit cards, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like send_bank_payment or send_payment. It does not provide when-not-to-use 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