keyfo

Gift a stock token

gift_stock

Read-onlyIdempotent

Build an unsigned buy of a stock token on Robinhood Chain that goes to another wallet as a gift: wallet pays with its ETH (usd worth, or eth), and the token arrives at recipient in the same transaction. Use it only when the user asks to send, give or gift a stock to an address; for the user’s own wallet, use build_trade. Copy recipient exactly as the user wrote it for this gift: 0x and 40 hex characters, not a .eth name. It must be a wallet, not the paying wallet and not a contract. An exchange’s deposit address looks like any wallet, so if the user may be sending to an exchange, ask them to check that it supports stock tokens on Robinhood Chain. Buys only, with build_trade’s limits: up to 10 ETH, and the ETH plus gas must already be in wallet. No keyfo fee; the route’s fees are in fees_usd. The calls expire at valid_until. No keyfo tool signs. When you reply, say what the recipient receives and show their full address. The answer also has sign_url: a keyfo page where the user checks the transaction and signs it in their own wallet. It stays open for 15 minutes and gets a new quote itself when the price is out of date. Show that link to the user, and never ask them to paste the transaction data anywhere.

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": {
      "token": "<token>",
      "wallet": "<wallet>",
      "recipient": "<recipient>"
    },
    "name": "gift_stock"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`eth`	No	ETH to spend, up to 10.
`usd`	No	Dollars of ETH to spend, at the current ETH price.
`token`	Yes	Ticker, like NVDA, or the token address.
`wallet`	Yes	The wallet that pays and signs. It needs the ETH, plus gas, on Robinhood Chain.
`recipient`	Yes	The wallet that gets the stock token: 0x and 40 hex characters, copied exactly as the user wrote it. Not the paying wallet and not a contract.
`slippage_pct`	No	Price tolerance in percent: 1 by default, from 0.1 to 10.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the 10 ETH cap, the requirement that ETH plus gas already be in the paying wallet, slippage/expiry behavior (valid_until), that no keyfo fee is charged and fees appear in fees_usd, and that nothing is signed by keyfo. It also explains the sign_url lifecycle: 15-minute validity and automatic re-quote when the price is stale.

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-loads the core behavior and the sibling routing rule, then layers constraints and the reply/signing instructions in a logical order. It is dense but somewhat long, and it restates recipient format rules already present in the schema, which costs a bit of efficiency.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With six parameters and no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing what comes back: sign_url with its 15-minute window and auto re-quote, fees_usd, and valid_until, plus how to present the result to the user. Coverage is strong, though the `slippage_pct` parameter and the exact response shape beyond those fields are left unaddressed.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning on `recipient`: copy exactly as written, no .eth names, must not be the paying wallet or a contract, and the caveat that exchange deposit addresses look like normal wallets. It explains the `eth`/`usd` payment modes only implicitly and does not mention `slippage_pct` at all.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: builds an unsigned buy of a stock token on Robinhood Chain paid by `wallet` and delivered to `recipient`. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling build_trade, which covers the user's own wallet.

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 ("only when the user asks to send, give or gift a stock to an address") and names the alternative for the other case (build_trade). It also adds conditional guidance to ask the user to verify exchange deposit-address support when relevant.

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

All keyfo 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?