Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Eclipse Agent Wallet MCP

Eclipse Agent Wallet MCP

by CYAN-ECLIPSE-TECHNOLOGIES-LLC
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

pay

Execute a USDC transfer within a wallet's granted policy scope; out-of-scope requests are rejected or sent to human approval when the threshold is exceeded.

Instructions

Execute a payment if it is inside the granted scope. Outside scope: rejected, or routed to the human approval queue if it only exceeds the approval threshold. Desk-bound wallets must pass authorization {nonce, signature} from the bound desk key.

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": {
      "wallet_id": "<wallet_id>",
      "to": "<to>",
      "amount_usdc": "<amount_usdc>"
    },
    "name": "pay"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYes
memoNo
wallet_idYes
amount_usdcYes
authorizationNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses scope enforcement, rejection, approval-queue routing, and the desk-bound authorization requirement with nonce and signature. However, it does not state whether payments are irreversible, how errors or successful responses look, or whether retries are idempotent, which are important for a payment mutation.

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 two dense sentences with no wasted wording. The main execution condition is front-loaded, followed by exception routing and authorization requirements.

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?

This is a complex, unannotated payment mutation with zero schema description coverage and no output schema. The description covers the main approval and authorization behavior, but it leaves significant gaps around parameter expectations, payment finality, response behavior, and failure handling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and there are five parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning only for authorization by specifying the {nonce, signature} shape and the bound desk key condition. It does not explain wallet_id, to, amount_usdc formatting, or memo semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: "Execute a payment." It also states the core scope condition, so the agent knows this is the payment execution tool rather than a read-only check. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as check_payment or approve_payment, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It clearly states when execution is allowed: inside granted scope. It also explains the outside-scope paths: rejection or human approval queue routing if the approval threshold is exceeded. It lacks explicit routing to sibling tools like check_payment or approve_payment, but the conditions themselves are well specified.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools