Skip to main content
Glama

transfer_tokens

Send cryptocurrency tokens between wallets using the Armor Crypto MCP server to facilitate token transfers across supported blockchain networks.

Instructions

Transfer tokens from one wallet to another.

Expects a TransferTokensRequestContainer, returns a list of TransferTokenResponse.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
transfer_tokens_requestsYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler for 'transfer_tokens'. Decorated with @mcp.tool() for registration and executes the tool logic by calling the ArmorWalletAPIClient's transfer_tokens method, handling errors and authentication.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def transfer_tokens(transfer_tokens_requests: TransferTokensRequestContainer) -> List[TransferTokenResponse]:
        """
        Transfer tokens from one wallet to another.
        
        Expects a TransferTokensRequestContainer, returns a list of TransferTokenResponse.
        """
        if not armor_client:
            return [{"error": "Not logged in"}]
        try:
            result: List[TransferTokenResponse] = await armor_client.transfer_tokens(transfer_tokens_requests)
            return result
        except Exception as e:
            return [{"error": str(e)}]
  • Pydantic models defining the input (TransferTokensRequest) and output (TransferTokenResponse) schemas for the transfer_tokens tool.
    class TransferTokensRequest(BaseModel):
        from_wallet: str = Field(description="name of the wallet to transfer tokens from")
        to_wallet_address: str = Field(description="public address of the wallet to transfer tokens to. Use `get_user_wallets_and_group_list` if you only have a wallet name")
        token: str = Field(description="public contract address of the token to transfer. To get the address from a token symbol use `get_token_details`")
        amount: float = Field(description="amount of tokens to transfer")
    
    
    class TransferTokenResponse(BaseModel):
        amount: float = Field(description="amount of tokens transferred")
        from_wallet_address: str = Field(description="public address of the wallet tokens were transferred from")
        to_wallet_address: str = Field(description="public address of the wallet tokens were transferred to")
        token_address: str = Field(description="public address of the token transferred")
        transaction_url: str = Field(description="public url of the transaction")
        message: str = Field(description="message of the operation showing if tokens were transferred")
  • Container model for batch input to transfer_tokens tool, wrapping a list of TransferTokensRequest.
    class TransferTokensRequestContainer(BaseModel):
        transfer_tokens_requests: List[TransferTokensRequest]
  • ArmorWalletAPIClient method implementing the core transfer logic via API call to the backend service.
    async def transfer_tokens(self, data: TransferTokensRequestContainer) -> List[TransferTokenResponse]:
        """Transfer tokens from one wallet to another."""
        # payload = [v.model_dump() for v in data.transfer_tokens_requests]
        payload = data.model_dump(exclude_none=True)['transfer_tokens_requests']
        return await self._api_call("POST", "transfers/transfer/", payload)
  • @mcp.tool() decorator registers the transfer_tokens function as an MCP tool.
    @mcp.tool()
Behavior2/5

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 states the tool performs a transfer operation but doesn't mention critical behavioral aspects like whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, is irreversible, or what happens on failure. This is inadequate for a financial transaction 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 core purpose. Both sentences are relevant, though the second sentence could be more informative about the response structure. There's minimal waste, but it borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (financial transfer), lack of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (which helps), the description doesn't adequately cover behavioral traits or parameter details. It's minimally viable but has significant gaps for safe and effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the single parameter 'transfer_tokens_requests' is completely undocumented in the schema. The description only mentions the parameter name without explaining what a TransferTokensRequestContainer contains (e.g., source/destination wallets, token amounts, network details). This leaves the parameter meaning ambiguous.

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 action ('Transfer tokens') and resources involved ('from one wallet to another'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools like 'swap_transaction' or 'stake_transaction' that might also involve token movements, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'swap_transaction' or 'send_key_to_telegram'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal contextual direction.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/emmaThompson07/armor-crypto-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server