Abstraxn Agent Layer

Prepare an unsigned transfer transaction

network.prepare_transfer

Read-onlyIdempotent

Build an unsigned native or token transfer transaction for a supported chain, from an explicit sender you provide. Free, read-only against the chain (nonce/gas/fees are read live) — this tool never signs, broadcasts, holds a key, or enforces any allowlist/spend limit. This server never binds a caller wallet, so from is always required.

Supported chains: solana, solana-devnet, ethereum, sepolia, polygon, amoy, bsc, bsc-testnet, base, base-sepolia, tempo, tempo-testnet, arbitrum-one, monad, skale-base-sepolia.

Token (token field):

Solana: 'SOL' (native, default) or 'USDC'.
EVM: native symbol (default), 'USDC', 'USDC.e' where configured for the chain, or a raw 0x contract address (decimals are read live from the contract; token_decimals is only a fallback if that read fails).

Gas: the sender pays gas in the chain's native token once they sign — this server never sponsors it.

Raw calldata (EVM only): pass data (hex, 0x-prefixed) with to as the contract call target and amount as the native value to send (use "0" for a pure call).

Privacy (private, EVM only): requests SKALE BITE encryption, only supported on skale-base-sepolia, where it defaults to true — pass private: false there for a plaintext transfer. Rejected on every other chain.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	Recipient address (0x for EVM, base58 for Solana).
`data`	No	Hex-encoded calldata for a raw EVM contract call (0x-prefixed). Requires `to` as the call target.
`from`	Yes	Sender address (0x for EVM, base58 for Solana).
`chain`	Yes	Destination chain. One of: solana, solana-devnet, ethereum, sepolia, polygon, amoy, bsc, bsc-testnet, base, base-sepolia, tempo, tempo-testnet, arbitrum-one, monad, skale-base-sepolia
`token`	No	Token symbol (native/USDC/USDC.e) or EVM contract address. Omit for the chain's native token.
`amount`	Yes	Amount in human units (e.g. "0.1", "100"). Use "0" for a contract call that sends no native value.
`private`	No	Request BITE privacy encryption. Only valid on skale-base-sepolia (defaults true there); rejected elsewhere.
`token_decimals`	No	Fallback decimals for an EVM ERC-20 if a live decimals() read fails (default 18).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	No
`from`	No
`chain`	No
`error`	No
`token`	No
`amount`	No
`policy`	No
`status`	No
`message`	No
`decimals`	No
`execution`	No
`transaction`	No
`amountAtomic`	No
`tokenContract`	No

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description extensively discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: it's read-only, never signs or broadcasts, does not hold keys, enforces no allowlists/spend limits, and requires 'from' always. This complements readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false perfectly, adding concrete details about live reads (nonce/gas/fees) and privacy behavior.

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 well-structured with sections and bullet points, front-loading the key purpose. All sentences add value, but it's somewhat lengthy; could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 15 chains, mixed EVM/Solana semantics, privacy options), the description is thoroughly complete. No output schema is needed for return values as the description covers the transaction building process comprehensively.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant semantic value beyond the schema: explains token field semantics (Solana vs EVM, raw contract address, decimals fallback), gas responsibility, raw calldata usage for EVM, and privacy specifics. Minor improvement possible with more examples or edge cases.

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's purpose: preparing an unsigned native or token transfer transaction for supported chains. It specifies the verb 'build', the resource 'unsigned transaction', and distinguishes from broadcasting/signing tools. The scope and limitations are explicit.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (free, read-only, never signs or broadcasts) and lists supported chains and token types. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or provide alternative tools for signing or broadcasting, though the sibling tools indicate this is a unique capability.

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

All Abstraxn Agent Layer tools Inspect

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

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are broadly distinct by domain (market, network, social, travel, web3), but some overlap exists between market.crypto and network.token_price (both provide token prices), and between network.token_info and web3.lookup's token_metadata action. However, the descriptions clarify the differences well.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names use a domain.subdomain pattern (e.g., market.crypto, network.gas_info), but the subdomains mix styles: dots (market.crypto), underscores (network.token_info), and plain names (travel.search). Additionally, actions within tools like 'places.lookup' have inconsistent naming (text_search_full vs. solar_building_insights).

Tool Count4/5

With 11 tools covering diverse domains (crypto, network, places, social, travel, web3), the count is reasonable. However, some tools encapsulate many actions (e.g., market.crypto has 6 actions, places.lookup has 12), hinting at a slightly heavy surface, but overall it fits the broad scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core workflows for each domain: crypto market data, network operations (block, gas, transfers, tokens), place search, social profile lookup, travel search, and web3 lookups. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for sending transactions or managing user accounts), but the stated purpose (agent layer for diverse tasks) is mostly fulfilled.

Prepare an unsigned transfer transaction

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources