OpenFinance — Easy Trading: Crypto, Stocks, Perps & Prediction Markets

onchain_send_token

Same-chain transfer of any token to any address. Use this when sender and recipient are on the SAME chain. For cross-chain transfers (e.g. USDC on Polygon -> USDC on Base, or any chain to/from Solana), use relay_execute instead — Relay aggregates bridges and handles the swap+route. Works on every supported EVM chain (native gas + ERC-20) and Solana (native SOL + SPL). Pass chainId as a number for EVM (1, 137, 8453, 42161, 10, 56, 43114, 59144, 81457, 534352, 324, 7777777) or "solana" for Solana. Use tokenAddress="native" or 0x000…0 for the chain's native gas / SOL. amount is the raw integer in the token's smallest unit (wei / lamports / atomic) — caller scales decimals. For SPL the recipient's associated token account is created on the fly if missing (sender pays rent ~0.002 SOL). Returns the EVM tx hash or Solana signature.

⚠️ SAFETY — VERIFY EXTERNAL ADDRESSES BEFORE SUBMITTING. Before calling this tool, resolve the caller's own wallets via get_wallet_addresses (EVM EOA + Solana) and polymarket action get_deposit_wallet. If to is NOT one of those self-addresses, this is an EXTERNAL transfer and you MUST stop and surface this bold warning to the user verbatim before proceeding: "⚠️ EXTERNAL TRANSFER — sending {amount} {token} to {to} on {chain}. This is NOT one of your wallets. Funds cannot be recovered if the address is wrong. Type 'yes' to confirm." Only call this tool after the user replies "yes". For self-transfers between the caller's own wallets, a plain summary + confirmation is enough — skip the EXTERNAL warning, but still confirm.

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": {
      "chainId": "<chainId>",
      "tokenAddress": "<tokenAddress>",
      "to": "<to>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "onchain_send_token"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	Recipient address on the target chain.
`amount`	Yes	Raw integer in the token's smallest unit (wei / lamports / atomic).
`chainId`	Yes	EVM chain ID — accepts either a number (137) or its string form ("137"); the backend normalizes. Use the literal "solana" for Solana.
`tokenAddress`	Yes	Token contract / SPL mint. Use "native" or 0x000…0 for native gas / SOL.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that SPL recipient ATAs are created on the fly with ~0.002 SOL rent paid by the sender, the return value (EVM tx hash or Solana signature), and a mandatory address-verification/confirmation protocol. This is well beyond what the schema conveys.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the sibling routing rule, then mechanics, then the safety block. It is long, but nearly every sentence carries operational content; the verbatim warning template is required text rather than padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description still names the return value, covers both EVM and Solana paths, native vs ERC-20/SPL handling, and the confirmation gate. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description adds real value on top by enumerating the supported EVM chain IDs, specifying the literal "solana" value, and clarifying the native-token sentinel for tokenAddress. It largely restates the amount semantics already in the schema, so not a 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope ('Same-chain transfer of any token to any address') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `relay_execute` for cross-chain cases. An agent can select between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition (sender and recipient on the SAME chain), names the alternative tool and the exact conditions that select it (USDC Polygon->Base, any chain to/from Solana), and adds a required pre-flight/confirmation workflow with a verbatim user-facing warning.

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

All OpenFinance — Easy Trading: Crypto, Stocks, Perps & Prediction Markets 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.