Tencent Ad MCP Server

fund_transfer_add

Transfer funds between advertising accounts by specifying account ID, amount, and transfer type. Supports optional external bill number for tracking.

Instructions

资金划转 (Transfer funds between accounts)

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": {
      "account_id": "<account_id>",
      "amount": "<amount>",
      "transfer_type": "<transfer_type>"
    },
    "name": "fund_transfer_add"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`amount`	Yes	划转金额，单位分
`account_id`	Yes	广告主账户ID
`transfer_type`	Yes	划转类型
`external_bill_no`	No	外部单号

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Transfer funds between accounts' without mentioning destructive potential, permission requirements, idempotency, or side effects. 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with a single sentence. It is front-loaded with the Chinese term first, then English translation. While short, it wastes no words, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 of a fund transfer tool (monetary impact, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on return values, success/failure behavior, account eligibility, or any prerequisites.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond restating the overall purpose. Per guidelines, baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Transfer funds between accounts'. It uses a specific verb ('Transfer') and resource ('funds between accounts'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools, as no other tool handles fund transfers.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. While the sibling set includes a funds_get tool for querying, the description does not address usage context or exclusions.

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