mcp-venmo

venmo_send_payment

Send money to a Venmo user. Requires recipient username, amount in USD, and a note describing the payment.

Instructions

Send money to a Venmo user. Requires a recipient username, amount in USD, and a note describing the payment.

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_send_payment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	Yes	Description / note for the payment
`amount`	Yes	Amount in USD to send (e.g. 10.50)
`audience`	No	Visibility of the transaction. Defaults to private.
`recipient`	Yes	Venmo username of the recipient (without @)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and required fields, without disclosing that this is a financial transaction that debits the sender's account, is irreversible, or may have error conditions. This lack of behavioral detail is significant for a money-transfer tool.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the main purpose and requirements without redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not mention the response format, error handling, or consequences of the transaction. For a financial action like sending money, the description is underspecified and leaves an agent without critical context.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description repeats the required parameters but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying 'amount in USD' (already specified in the schema).

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 clearly states 'Send money to a Venmo user,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like venmo_request_payment (which requests money) and venmo_transfer_to_bank (to bank).

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?

The description provides clear context: the tool is for sending money and requires a recipient username, amount, and note. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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

Deploy Server