pay-mcp

pay_send

Send USDC payments on Base by transferring to a specified recipient address. Supports optional memo for payment details.

Instructions

Send USDC payment on Base. Transfers USDC to the specified address.

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": {
      "to": "<to>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "pay_send"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	Recipient address (0x...)
`memo`	No	Optional memo/note for this payment
`amount`	Yes	Amount in USDC (e.g., "10.50")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states that USDC is transferred, but omits important consequences such as irrevocability, gas fees, need for wallet authorization, or network confirmation. This is a significant gap for a payment tool.

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?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the main verb and resource. However, 'Transfers USDC to the specified address' is somewhat redundant with 'Send USDC payment', so it is not maximally concise.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover the full context. It does not mention return values (e.g., transaction hash), failure modes, or prerequisites, leaving an agent underprepared for the actual outcome of the tool.

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%—to, amount, and memo are already well documented. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond restating the recipient, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource 'USDC payment on Base', clearly stating the action and target. It is distinguishable from siblings like pay_balance, pay_request, and pay_history because it focuses on transferring USDC out to an address.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The usage context is implied: use this tool to send USDC payments. However, it does not explicitly compare with pay_request or pay_balance, and gives no exclusions or alternative tool guidance, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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

Deploy Server