clicks_receive_payment

Split USDC payments for registered AI agents: 80% to wallet, 20% to DeFi yield on Base network.

Instructions

Split a USDC payment for an agent: 80% liquid to wallet, 20% to DeFi yield. Agent must be registered first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`amount`	Yes	Payment amount in USDC (e.g. "100")
`agent_address`	Yes	Ethereum address of the AI agent

Implementation Reference

mcp-server/src/index.ts:304-327 (handler)

The tool 'clicks_receive_payment' splits a USDC payment for an agent, with 80% going to the wallet and 20% to DeFi yield, using the splitter contract.

server.tool(
  'clicks_receive_payment',
  'Split a USDC payment for an agent: 80% liquid to wallet, 20% to DeFi yield. Agent must be registered first.',
  {
    amount: z.string().describe('Payment amount in USDC (e.g. "100")'),
    agent_address: z.string().describe('Ethereum address of the AI agent'),
  },
  async ({ amount, agent_address }) => {
    const signer = getSigner();
    const splitter = new Contract(ADDRESSES.splitter, SPLITTER_ABI, signer);
    const amountWei = parseUnits(amount, 6);
    const tx = await splitter.receivePayment(amountWei, agent_address);
    const receipt = await tx.wait();

    return {
      content: [{
        type: 'text' as const,
        text: JSON.stringify({
          success: true,
          txHash: tx.hash,
          amount_usdc: amount,
          agent: agent_address,
          message: `Payment of ${amount} USDC split successfully. ~80% to wallet, ~20% earning yield.`,
        }, null, 2),

Tool Definition Quality

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully explains the fund allocation logic (80% liquid, 20% yield) but omits critical transaction details such as irreversibility, gas fees, on-chain confirmation requirements, or failure modes.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first front-loads the core action and split mechanics; the second provides the critical prerequisite. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple 2-parameter schema with full coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the input requirements and core business logic. It lacks details on return values or success/failure indicators, but the explanation of the split mechanics and prerequisite provides sufficient context for invocation.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description provides context that the payment involves USDC and an agent, but does not add parameter-specific details (e.g., address format validation, amount constraints) beyond what the schema already documents.

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 specific verbs ('Split') and resources ('USDC payment') and clearly defines the unique 80/20 allocation behavior (liquid vs. DeFi yield). This distinguishes it from siblings like clicks_withdraw_yield (which withdraws existing funds) and clicks_register_agent (prerequisite setup).

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?

Provides explicit prerequisite ('Agent must be registered first') which functions as a when-not-to-use guideline. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool (clicks_register_agent) to use instead if unregistered, nor does it distinguish from clicks_simulate_split.

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

Install Server

Clicks Protocol