agentcard

add_funds

Generate a secure checkout link the user opens to add cash to their own balance (the money that funds new cards) via Apple Pay or Google Pay, in USD. Calling this tool moves NO money and initiates NO transfer: it only prepares a single-use hosted payment page — the exact equivalent of the user clicking 'Add funds' in the dashboard. The user personally reviews, authorizes, and completes (or abandons) the payment in their own browser with their own payment method; you never see or handle payment credentials. If a one-time phone verification is needed first, this tool automatically sends the user a code and tells you where it went: ask the user for the code, call verify_phone with it, then call add_funds again.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`amount_cents`	Yes	Amount to add in cents (e.g. 5000 = $50.00). Typical range: $20.00 to $10,000.00 (2000 to 1000000 cents); the exact range depends on the active funding provider and is returned by the API when the amount is invalid.
`payment_method`	No	Payment method for the checkout. Defaults to apple_pay.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`message`	Yes	Human-readable result or next step.
`amountUsd`	No	Amount of the created checkout in USD.
`checkoutUrl`	No	Single-use payment link to hand the user verbatim (present when a checkout was created).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedJul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that no money moves, the user completes payment in their browser, payment credentials are never seen/handled, and automatic phone verification may occur. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main action, then clearly explains boundaries, user role, and a conditional workflow. Every sentence adds value; 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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not cover return values. It sufficiently explains purpose, parameter semantics, usage flow, and behavioral traits, including the phone verification contingency. Comprehensive for a checkout-link generation tool.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning: amount is in cents with a typical range ($20–$10,000) and notes that exact range depends on funding provider. It also clarifies the default for payment_method (apple_pay).

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 ('Generate a secure checkout link') and resource ('add cash to user balance'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by clarifying it does not move money or initiate transfers, only prepares a hosted payment page.

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?

Explicitly provides context for when to use (to add funds via Apple/Google Pay) and a conditional workflow (phone verification needed → call verify_phone then add_funds). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, though the contingency covers a common alternative step.

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

All agentcard 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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially in areas like card management and shopping. However, the KYC flow has multiple overlapping tools (start_kyc, get_kyc_status, check_kyc_document, submit_kyc_document, submit_kyc_fields) that could confuse an agent despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., add_funds, create_card, list_cards). A few exceptions like surprise_me and whoami break the pattern but are still intuitive overall.

Tool Count3/5

50 tools is on the high side for a single server, but the broad domain (cards, shopping, KYC, support, settings) partially justifies it. Some tools could be merged (e.g., KYC flow tools) without losing clarity.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core workflows: CRUD for cards, transactions, KYC, support, shopping, and account management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update_card general, no cancel order in shopping), but overall the set is comprehensive for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?