mcp-venmo

venmo_request_payment

Request money from a Venmo user by username, specifying the USD amount and a note. Control visibility with public, friends, or private.

Instructions

Request money from a Venmo user.

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": {
      "recipient": "<recipient>",
      "amount": "<amount>",
      "note": "<note>"
    },
    "name": "venmo_request_payment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	Yes	Description / reason for the request
`amount`	Yes	Amount in USD to request (e.g. 25.00)
`audience`	No	Visibility of the transaction. Defaults to private.
`recipient`	Yes	Venmo username to request money from (without @)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Request money' and does not mention that this creates a pending request requiring acceptance, notifications to the recipient, or any side effects. This is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It contains no fluff and is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

The description lacks essential context about the transactional nature of the request (e.g., it needs recipient approval, is not an immediate transfer). Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse to fully inform the agent.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 'Request money from a Venmo user' clearly states the action and target. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like venmo_send_payment only implicitly through the verb 'request', but doesn't explicitly mention the difference.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like venmo_send_payment, venmo_accept_request, or venmo_decline_request. The description only states the function, leaving the agent to infer context.

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

Deploy Server