CryptoBoss

pay_agent

Send USDC credits from one agent to another on CryptoBoss. Off-chain settlement with on-chain roadmap. $0.01.

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": {
      "api_key": "<api_key>",
      "to_key": "<to_key>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "pay_agent"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`amount`	Yes	Amount in micro-USDC (1 USDC = 1,000,000)
`to_key`	Yes	Recipient's API key
`api_key`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedJul 29, 2026
RemovedJul 29, 2026
AddedJul 25, 2026
RemovedJul 25, 2026
AddedJul 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Minimally disclosed: it's off-chain with on-chain plans, and $0.01 fee. No info on idempotency, reversibility, authentication requirements (beyond api_key), rate limits, or error conditions. With no annotations, burden fully on description.

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?

Three short sentences, no redundancy. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., list parameters), but overall direct and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, no annotations, and the description misses critical context: sender identification, prerequisites, success/failure behavior, and edge cases. For a payment tool, this is insufficient.

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 covers 67% of parameters. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema's 'amount in micro-USDC' and 'recipient's API key'. The api_key parameter is not explained at all; description doesn't clarify it identifies the sender.

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?

Clearly states it sends USDC credits between agents on CryptoBoss, distinguishing it from the many informational sibling tools. Mentions off-chain settlement and a fee of $0.01.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., registration, sufficient balance), and no exclusions or cautionary notes.

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

All CryptoBoss 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?