agentcard

withdraw

Withdraw cash from the user's balance, either to their saved bank account or to a crypto address on Base (USDC). Transfers are processed manually by the Agentcard team, usually within 1-3 business days; the user is emailed when it's sent. For a bank withdrawal, if the user has no saved bank account yet, call create_withdrawal_recipient first. For a crypto withdrawal, pass destination_address (a 0x Base address). ALWAYS confirm the amount and destination with the user before calling this.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`amount_cents`	Yes	Amount to withdraw in cents (e.g. 2500 = $25.00). Range: $2.00 to $10,000.00.
`recipient_id`	No	Bank rail: the saved bank account to pay (wrec_...). Omit to be shown the saved accounts.
`destination_address`	No	Crypto rail: a 0x-prefixed address on Base to receive USDC. When set, the withdrawal goes on-chain instead of to a bank account.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`message`	Yes	Human-readable result or next step.
`amountUsd`	No	Requested amount in USD.
`withdrawalId`	No	Reference id of the created withdrawal request.

Schema Changelog

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

First observedJul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: manual processing by the Agentcard team, 1-3 business day timeline, and user notification via email. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (modifies state) but no destructive hint. The description adds context about the asynchronous, manual nature beyond annotations. Could mention potential fees or cancellation policy, but overall strong.

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 concise (4 sentences) and well-structured: front-loaded with the main action and options, followed by prerequisites and user confirmation requirement. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 output schema exists, the description covers all necessary context: the withdrawal process (bank vs crypto), prerequisites, timing, and user confirmation. It does not need to explain return values. For a withdrawal tool, it provides a complete picture.

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% (all 3 parameters described), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining how to choose between bank and crypto rails (using recipient_id vs destination_address) and the implication of each. Also mentions the email notification. This adds value beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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: 'Withdraw cash from the user's balance, either to their saved bank account or to a crypto address on Base (USDC).' It specifies the verb (withdraw) and resource (balance), and distinguishes two distinct modes (bank vs crypto). This differentiates it from siblings like 'add_funds' or 'create_withdrawal_recipient'.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: when to use each rail, prerequisites ('call create_withdrawal_recipient first' if no saved bank account), and a mandatory instruction ('ALWAYS confirm the amount and destination with the user before calling this'). It also explains the manual processing time of 1-3 business days.

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?