Skip to main content
Glama

Prepare a REGEN bridge transaction (non-custodial)

prepare_bridge
Read-onlyIdempotent

Move REGEN between the Regen chain, Osmosis, Arbitrum and Base in ONE transaction the caller signs with their own wallet. Returns a live quote and the exact unsigned transaction; Skip Go's relayers carry every hop after the broadcast: no confirm step, nothing held by this server, free. Five routes: regen→arbitrum, regen→base and base→regen (axlREGEN through Axelar), plus regen→osmosis and osmosis→regen (a plain ICS-20 transfer over regen-1 channel-1 and osmosis-1 channel-8). This tool prepares that ICS-20 leg itself: zero toll, amount out equals amount in, one signed message, timeouts derived live by Skip, and no minimum send; on those two legs destination may be omitted, and the sender's own account re-encoded under the destination prefix is used (same key, same 20 bytes, no new wallet). Skip does now return a one-transaction route from Osmosis to Base, but it is a CosmWasm contract call rather than a plain ICS-20 transfer, and this tool prepares only ICS-20 transfers and Axelar sends, so it is not offered here; from Osmosis, route home first (osmosis→regen), then regen→base or regen→arbitrum from the regen1 address. Base USDC to REGEN and the reverse take two signed transactions and are not offered here either. Outbound sends from the Regen chain to Arbitrum or Base pay Axelar's flat per-transfer toll, which Axelar prices in dollars (about $0.19 to $0.23 measured across 2026-09-05 to 2026-09-08) and so floats in REGEN terms: measured between 94 and 175 REGEN across those days, on a transfer of any size, moving with both the REGEN price and the shape of the route Skip picks. It is quoted LIVE at call time and returned as quote.toll_regen. The response is authoritative; the figures in this text are approximate and there is no stable number to publish. On those Axelar routes send at least twelve times the live toll in one transfer (returned as quote.min_send_regen, which is null on the Osmosis legs because they have no minimum) and batch rather than dribble; a smaller send is refused with the live toll named. base→regen carries no REGEN toll: the prepared EVM transaction carries a small native ETH value instead, Axelar's fee as Skip quotes it (about $0.11 measured 2026-09-08, returned as sign_this.value and refused above $0.50), after one exact ERC-20 approval. Measured landing times with one key, every landing read from the destination chain on 2026-09-08: regen→osmosis under a minute, regen→base about 66 seconds, base→regen about 30 minutes because Axelar waits on Base finality before it approves an EVM to Cosmos call. After the broadcast, call bridge_status with the source chain and the transaction hash to follow it; a round trip through Base and back loses money at every size this tool prepares (the flat toll never crosses the small price spread), so move REGEN to where it is needed, never to trade the gap. Cost and signer: free to prepare; the person's own wallet signs and pays the bridge toll and gas, and the house never holds a key.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amountYesAmount in whole REGEN (e.g. "5000"). Same 6-decimal unit on every chain.
senderYesThe caller's OWN address on from_chain (regen1… for regen, osmo1… for osmosis, 0x… for base and arbitrum): the wallet that will sign.
to_chainYesChain the REGEN should end up on.
from_chainYesChain the REGEN is on now.
destinationNoThe caller's OWN address on to_chain that receives the funds. Required on the Arbitrum and Base routes, where no address can be derived from the sender's. Optional on regen→osmosis and osmosis→regen: when omitted, the sender's own account re-encoded under the destination prefix is used (same key, same 20 bytes, no new wallet).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okNo
toolNo
fundedNo
payUsdNo
workIdNo
claimIdNo
claimableNo
next_callNo
proofRuleNo
fulfillableByNo
definitionOfDoneNo
needs_from_callerNo
notClaimableReasonNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / destination / description
      Previous value: -"The caller's OWN address on to_chain that receives the funds."New value: +"The caller's OWN address on to_chain that receives the funds. Required on the Arbitrum and Base routes, where no address can be derived from the sender's. Optional on regen→osmosis and osmosis→regen: when omitted, the sender's own account re-encoded under the destination prefix is used (same key, same 20 bytes, no new wallet)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / from_chain / enum
      Previous value: -[
      -  "regen",
      -  "base",
      -  "arbitrum"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "regen",
      +  "base",
      +  "arbitrum",
      +  "osmosis"
      +]
    • changedInput schema / properties / sender / description
      Previous value: -"The caller's OWN address on from_chain (regen1… for regen, 0x… for base) — the wallet that will sign."New value: +"The caller's OWN address on from_chain (regen1… for regen, osmo1… for osmosis, 0x… for base and arbitrum): the wallet that will sign."
    • changedInput schema / properties / to_chain / enum
      Previous value: -[
      -  "regen",
      -  "base",
      -  "arbitrum"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "regen",
      +  "base",
      +  "arbitrum",
      +  "osmosis"
      +]
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "from_chain",
      -  "to_chain",
      -  "amount",
      -  "sender",
      -  "destination"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "from_chain",
      +  "to_chain",
      +  "amount",
      +  "sender"
      +]
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / claimable
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / notClaimableReason
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond annotations: non-custodial, free to prepare, no confirm step, relayer-carried hops, live-quoted toll (~94–175 REGEN, floating), ETH value cap of $0.50 on base→regen, exact ERC-20 approval, and measured landing times per route (under a minute to ~30 minutes). Preparing an unsigned transaction is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true since the server mutates no state, so there is no contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded correctly, with routing, then tolls, then timings, then the bridge_status handoff. But it is roughly 450 words in a single dense block, and it spends several clauses quoting measured toll ranges and dates only to declare them approximate and unpublishable, which is text the agent cannot act on.

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-chain, high-stakes financial preparation tool this covers everything an agent needs: supported routes, exclusions and workarounds, cost model, minimums, signature count, latency, and post-broadcast continuation. An output schema exists, and the description still names the key response fields (quote.toll_regen, quote.min_send_regen, sign_this.value) so the agent knows what to surface.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds decision-relevant meaning by tying `amount` to the live min_send_regen threshold, explaining that `destination` is derivable from sender on the two Osmosis legs (same key, same 20 bytes), and noting to_chain specifics like the ETH value surfacing in sign_this.value. This is genuine semantic enrichment rather than restatement.

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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource+scope: moves REGEN between four named chains in one caller-signed transaction, returning a live quote and unsigned tx. It explicitly delineates the five supported routes and names the sibling (bridge_status) used for follow-up, so an agent can distinguish it from prepare_chain_step and the submit_* family without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states when each route applies, when destination may be omitted, the 12x-toll minimum-send rule with the refusal behavior, the batching preference, and what to call after broadcast (bridge_status with source chain + tx hash). It also states two exclusions with the required workaround (Osmosis→Base must route home via osmosis→regen first; Base USDC↔REGEN not offered), which is rare and valuable routing guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources