AgentWallet MCP Server

transfer_token

Sends ERC-20 or SPL tokens to a recipient address by specifying the amount in human-readable format, then signs and broadcasts the transaction.

Instructions

Send ERC-20 tokens (EVM) or SPL tokens (Solana) to an address. Specify the amount in human-readable format (e.g. "100" for 100 USDC). Signs and broadcasts the transaction. Use get_chains to find stablecoin addresses.

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>",
      "token": "<token>",
      "to": "<to>",
      "amount": "<amount>",
      "chain_id": "<chain_id>"
    },
    "name": "transfer_token"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	Recipient address (0x-prefixed for EVM, Base58 for Solana)
`token`	Yes	Token address (0x-prefixed ERC-20 contract for EVM, Base58 mint for Solana)
`amount`	Yes	Amount in human-readable format (e.g. "100" for 100 USDC)
`chain_id`	Yes	Chain ID
`decimals`	No	Token decimals. Resolved from the registry or the token contract when omitted; if given, it must match
`wallet_id`	Yes	Wallet ID to send from

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv1.14.8Oct 27, 2026
- 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
```

Changed5 schema fields changedv1.14.2Oct 14, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / decimals / default
```
Removed value: -18
```

changedInput schema / properties / decimals / description

Previous value: -"Token decimals (6 for USDC, 18 for most tokens)"New value: +"Token decimals. Resolved from the registry or the token contract when omitted; if given, it must match"

addedInput schema / properties / decimals / maximum
```
Added value: +36
```
addedInput schema / properties / decimals / minimum
```
Added value: +0
```

addedInput schema / properties / to / pattern

Added value: +"^(0x[a-fA-F0-9]{40}|[1-9A-HJ-NP-Za-km-z]{32,44})$"

First observedv1.7.3Mar 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the critical trait that it signs and broadcasts, i.e. it is an irreversible write. It omits auth/permission requirements, fee or gas behavior, irreversibility warnings, and whether any simulation step occurs first, which for a fund-moving tool is a meaningful gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the address format, then the amount convention, then the sibling hint. Slightly redundant with the schema on the amount example, but no wasted framing.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should tell the agent what comes back after broadcasting (transaction hash, status, explorer reference). It stops at "signs and broadcasts," leaving the return value and failure behavior unspecified for a high-stakes mutation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; every parameter including the optional `decimals` fallback behavior is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the human-readable amount convention and points at get_chains for token addresses, adding little beyond structured data.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource pair: sends ERC-20 tokens on EVM or SPL tokens on Solana to an address. That scopes it more tightly than the generic sibling `transfer`, though it never names `transfer` to draw the native-vs-token boundary explicitly.

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?

Gives one routing hint ("Use get_chains to find stablecoin addresses") which helps the agent locate the token parameter. It does not say when to prefer this over `transfer` or `send_transaction`, nor does it state that it is the wrong tool for native ETH/SOL sends, leaving the key disambiguation to inference.

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