valta-mcp

valta_transfer_funds

Transfer USDC directly between two of your agent wallets. Provide the sending and receiving wallet IDs and the amount in USDC.

Instructions

Transfer USDC directly between two of your agent wallets.

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": {
      "fromAgentId": "<fromAgentId>",
      "toAgentId": "<toAgentId>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "valta_transfer_funds"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`amount`	Yes	Amount in USDC to transfer
`toAgentId`	Yes	Wallet ID or name receiving funds
`description`	No	Optional description of the transfer
`fromAgentId`	Yes	Wallet ID or name sending funds

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.4Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a direct transfer between agent wallets but does not mention any side effects, authorization requirements, or irreversibility. For a financial transfer tool, this is insufficient.

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?

One sentence, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the verb and purpose. Ideal conciseness for a simple tool.

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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values (e.g., transaction ID), error handling, or constraints beyond the schema. A user needs more context.

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 the individual parameter descriptions already exist. The description adds the context 'between two of your agent wallets,' which reinforces but does not significantly augment the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool transfers USDC between agent wallets, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like valta_request_spend or valta_check_balance, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., valta_request_spend for spending, valta_check_balance for balance checks). The description does not mention prerequisites or context.

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

Deploy Server