ows-mcp-wallet

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

send_transaction

Send cryptocurrency to a recipient address on supported chains, subject to automatic spending limits and policy enforcement.

Instructions

Send cryptocurrency to an address (subject to policy limits)

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": {
      "chain": "<chain>",
      "to": "<to>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "send_transaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	Recipient address
`chain`	Yes	Chain to send on (ethereum-sepolia, solana-devnet, base-sepolia)
`amount`	Yes	Amount to send (in native token)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions policy limits and does not disclose irreversibility, permission requirements, or response behavior. For a potentially destructive action like sending cryptocurrency, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. No redundant words or filler, making it highly concise while still conveying the essential purpose.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description is extremely brief. It fails to warn about policy rejection, irreversibility, or chain-specific behaviors. The token 'subject to policy limits' is a vague nod to constraints but does not adequately prepare the agent for a high-stakes transaction.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context for the parameters, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send') and a clear resource ('cryptocurrency to an address'). It unambiguously distinguishes this tool from its siblings (get_balance, check_policy), which are read or policy-related.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The parenthetical 'subject to policy limits' hints at a policy constraint but does not mention check_policy as a prerequisite or describe scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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

Deploy Server