SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Circle CCTP fast-burn allowance and the fee tiers for one

crypto_circle_cctp_transfers

Read-only

Circle CCTP (USDC cross-chain transfer) fast-burn allowance and the fee tiers for one source-to-destination domain pair. Narrowed: the attestation status of a specific transfer needs its burn transaction hash, which this tool does not take, so per-transfer attestation is not reported. Related tools on this server, for a different need: crypto_subtensor_transfers when you need recent TAO token transfers on Subtensor with transfer; crypto_whale_alert_transfers when you need Bitcoin large transactions in the latest block. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "crypto_circle_cctp_transfers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	No	CCTP source domain id, e.g. 0 = Ethereum (default 0)
`destination`	No	CCTP destination domain id, e.g. 6 = Base (default 6)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	No
`feeTiers`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`sourceDomain`	No
`destinationDomain`	No
`allowanceUpdatedAt`	No
`fastBurnAllowanceUsdc`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior the annotations do not: a paid model of $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 (Base, Solana or Arc) with failed calls uncharged, which is decision-relevant before invoking. It also discloses the attestation coverage limitation, though it says nothing about freshness/latency of allowance data.

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 core purpose and the narrowing caveat are front-loaded, which is good. But roughly a third of the text is spent routing to two siblings in unrelated domains (Subtensor, Bitcoin whale alerts), which is low-value against a 100+ tool server, and the pricing sentence competes with the scope statement for attention.

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 low-complexity, two-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers what is queried, what is excluded, cost, and payment mechanism, which is enough to call it correctly. Remaining gaps (data freshness, what 'fee tier' levels look like) are partly absorbed by the output schema, so completeness is close to adequate.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters document domain ids with concrete examples (0 = Ethereum, 6 = Base) plus defaults, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description only restates that exactly one source-to-destination pair is queried and adds no format, valid-range, or domain-id source guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

The definition names a specific protocol (Circle CCTP), a specific datum (fast-burn allowance and fee tiers), and a specific scope (one source-to-destination domain pair). It also explicitly narrows itself by stating that per-transfer attestation is not reported because the tool does not take a burn tx hash, which distinguishes it from what an agent might otherwise assume. It stops short of naming the closest CCTP/bridge sibling it should be chosen over, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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 gives an explicit when-not: per-transfer attestation is out of scope because the required burn transaction hash is not a parameter. It also names two alternative tools for adjacent needs. However, the alternatives cited (Subtensor TAO transfers, Bitcoin whale txs) are for unrelated domains and do not help an agent choose between this tool and a true bridge/transfer-analytics sibling such as crypto_cross_chain_bridge_flows.

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

All SiteCheck Crypto & Finance tools Inspect

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

Need Help?