Skip to main content
Glama

send_transaction

Sign and broadcast EVM or Solana transactions server-side via RPC, returning the transaction hash or signature on success.

Instructions

Sign and broadcast a transaction. Returns the transaction hash (EVM) or signature (Solana) on success. The transaction is signed server-side and broadcast via RPC.

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": {
      "wallet_id": "<wallet_id>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "send_transaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesDestination address (0x-prefixed for EVM, Base58 for Solana)
dataNoHex-encoded calldata (0x-prefixed) for EVM contract calls
valueNoValue in wei/lamports (decimal integer string; no hex, no decimals)0
max_feeNoMax fee per gas in wei — EVM only (auto if omitted)
chain_idNoChain ID (defaults to wallet's default)
gas_limitNoGas limit — EVM only (auto-estimated if omitted)
wallet_idYesWallet ID
token_mintNoSPL token mint address — Solana only (for SPL token transfers)
priority_feeNoMax priority fee per gas in wei — EVM only (auto if omitted)
token_decimalsNoSPL token decimals, Solana only (6 for USDC)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.14.8
    • addedInput schema / properties / chain_id / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • addedInput schema / properties / chain_id / minimum
      Added value: +-9007199254740991
    • addedInput schema / properties / wallet_id / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • addedInput schema / properties / wallet_id / minimum
      Added value: +-9007199254740991
  2. Changed7 schema fields changedv1.14.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / data / pattern
      Added value: +"^(0x([0-9a-fA-F]{2})*)?$"
    • addedInput schema / properties / to / pattern
      Added value: +"^(0x[a-fA-F0-9]{40}|[1-9A-HJ-NP-Za-km-z]{32,44})$"
    • changedInput schema / properties / token_decimals / description
      Previous value: -"SPL token decimals — Solana only (6 for USDC)"New value: +"SPL token decimals, Solana only (6 for USDC)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / token_decimals / maximum
      Added value: +36
    • addedInput schema / properties / token_decimals / minimum
      Added value: +0
    • changedInput schema / properties / value / description
      Previous value: -"Value in wei/lamports (decimal string)"New value: +"Value in wei/lamports (decimal integer string; no hex, no decimals)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / value / pattern
      Added value: +"^\\d+$"
  3. First observedv1.7.3

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses server-side signing, RPC broadcast, and success return values, but it omits irreversibility, prerequisites, auth requirements, and failure or confirmation behavior for a high-stakes mutation.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return value. There is no repetition or wasted text.

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?

The description covers the return value and signing model, which is useful since there is no output schema. However, for a 10-parameter, high-stakes transaction tool with no annotations, it should also explain prerequisites, alternatives, and irreversibility.

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 10 parameters, including EVM-only and Solana-only fields. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb phrase, "Sign and broadcast a transaction," and states the return value. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sign_transaction by including broadcast, but it does not explicitly name or contrast siblings.

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?

It gives no guidance on when to use this versus transfer, transfer_token, call_contract, or simulate_transaction. The only implied usage is as a generic signing and broadcasting operation.

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