Skip to main content
Glama

swop

by io.github.Travisswop

Send USDC from my Swop wallet

swop_send
Destructive

Send USDC (on Base) from the linked Swop wallet to a swop.id handle or 0x address, within the caps the user set in the Swop app. TWO-STEP: call WITHOUT confirm first to get a preview (resolved recipient, amount, caps); show that summary to the user and get their explicit yes; then call again with the returned previewId and confirm: true. Over-cap or confirm-only settings return a Swop-app approval link instead of executing. Never call with confirm before the user has seen the preview.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesRecipient: swop.id handle (e.g. "alice.swop.id") or 0x address
confirmNotrue ONLY after the user explicitly confirmed the preview
amountUsdYesAmount in USD (sent as USDC)
previewIdNoFrom the preview step

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations mark destructiveHint: true, but the description adds critical behavioral context: the tool is two-step, returns a preview needing explicit confirmation, can return a Swop-app approval link instead of executing when over cap or confirm-only, and does not execute on the first call. This goes well beyond the annotations and materially changes how an agent should call it.

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?

Three sentences: the first states the action and recipient, the second gives the precise two-step procedure, and the third adds a necessary safety warning. Every sentence contributes essential information with no filler.

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 multi-step destructive tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the full call lifecycle: preview, user confirmation, final execution, and edge cases such as over-cap and confirm-only settings. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Input schema already covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how confirm and previewId relate to the two-step flow, clarifying that amountUsd is sent as USDC, and noting caps behavior. This enriches parameter understanding beyond 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Send USDC (on Base) from the linked Swop wallet' to 'a swop.id handle or 0x address.' This clearly identifies the operation and its scope, and it is distinct from sibling tools like swop_get_swap_quote or swop_pay_x402_link.

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 provides explicit when and how instructions: call without confirm first, show the preview to the user, get explicit yes, then call again with previewId and confirm: true. It also states a firm negative rule: 'Never call with confirm before the user has seen the preview.' This is strong operational guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All swop toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource and action: search_markets is for discovery while get_event_markets is for a single event's full detail, and lookup_identity/search_identities, get_prices/get_price_history, and send/pay_x402_link are all clearly separated. There is no realistic pair of tools an agent would struggle to choose between.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent snake_case, swop_-prefixed, verb-first pattern such as get_*, search_*, create_*, update_*, send, and pay_*. Even slightly longer names like check_predictions_access stay within the same predictable structure.

Tool Count4/5

21 tools is on the higher side, but the server covers several distinct clusters: prediction-market data, account/wallet info, identity resolution, SmartSite commerce, and payments. Each tool has a clear role, so the count is slightly over the ideal range but still reasonable for the apparent scope.

Completeness3/5

The market data and payment send flows are fairly complete, but lifecycle operations are missing: products can be created and listed but not updated or deleted, swaps are quote-only, and there is no prediction-market order execution tool. These are notable gaps, though they do not block the core send/pay and market-data workflows.

Resources