agentcard

create_withdrawal_recipient

Save a bank account as a withdrawal destination for the user's cash balance. Supports US bank accounts (ACH: routing + account number) and international bank accounts (SWIFT wire: IBAN + BIC). Ask the user for their bank details conversationally, then call this once. After saving, use withdraw to request a payout.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`iban`	No	International only: IBAN (e.g. DE89370400440532013000).
`type`	Yes	ach for US bank accounts; international_wire (SWIFT) for everywhere else.
`nickname`	No	A label for this account (e.g. 'My checking').
`bank_name`	No	The recipient bank's name (recommended).
`swift_code`	No	International only: 8 or 11 character SWIFT/BIC.
`account_type`	No	ACH only: account type.
`country_code`	Yes	Two-letter country code of the account holder (e.g. 'US', 'DE').
`account_number`	No	ACH only: US account number (4-17 digits).
`routing_number`	No	ACH only: 9-digit US routing number.
`beneficiary_name`	Yes	The account holder's full legal name, exactly as the bank knows it.
`country_specific`	No	Extra banking fields some countries require: {"ifsc": "..."} for India, {"clabe": "..."} for Mexico, {"bsb": "..."} for Australia. Required for those countries; the validation error names the missing key.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`message`	Yes	Human-readable result or next step.

Schema Changelog

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

First observedJul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a creation (write) operation. The description adds context about supported bank types and required fields. No contradictions. Moderate additional behavioral disclosure beyond 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, clearly separating US and international cases. No wasted words. Efficient and well-structured.

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 and the richness of sibling tools, the description is complete. It explains the tool's role in the withdrawal flow and covers all necessary behavioral aspects.

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 value by explaining the relationship between parameters (e.g., US vs international fields) and giving examples for country_specific. This extra context warrants a 4.

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 saves a bank account as a withdrawal destination. It explicitly mentions support for US ACH and international SWIFT, and distinguishing from sibling tools like 'withdraw' and 'list_withdrawal_recipients'.

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 clear workflow guidance: ask the user for bank details conversationally, call this once, then use 'withdraw' for payout. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives but the context is sufficient.

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?