xportalx

x402_send

Send USDC directly to ANY wallet address via x402 payment. Just provide to_address and amount - the flow auto-completes: 1) Pay 0.01 USDC platform fee 2) Pay the amount directly to destination. Tokens go from you to recipient. Perfect for paying agents, tipping, or sending to any address.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "to_address": "<to_address>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "x402_send"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`amount`	Yes	Amount of USDC to send (e.g., '5' for 5 USDC).
`to_address`	Yes	Destination wallet address (0x...) to receive the USDC.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJan 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and explains the two-step fee and transfer flow, including the 0.01 USDC platform fee and that tokens go from the sender to recipient. It lacks error-case details but is genuinely transparent for a send operation.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by the stepwise flow and use cases. No wasted words.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, fee, and use cases, making it sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter detail beyond the schema's descriptions of amount and to_address.

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 function with a specific verb ('Send'), resource ('USDC'), and scope ('to ANY wallet address via x402 payment'). It distinguishes from siblings by referencing the x402 payment protocol and the direct transfer mechanism.

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 provides clear use cases—'paying agents, tipping, or sending to any address'—but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All xportalx 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?